|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Russian warships in Cuban visit
| Quote: |
|
A group of Russian warships is to visit Cuba for the first time since the Soviet era, the Russian navy has said. |
| Quote: |
|
The visit, scheduled for 19-22 December, will be led by the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko. |
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7783294.stm
These past 3 months Russia has been strengthing economic and military ties with Latin America. From doing joint air force training drills with Venezuela or signing an economic package with Brazil. Considering how close Venezuela, Brazil, and now Cuba is to the United States, what are your thoughts on this?
I myself can't say much yet. I do not feel that safe anymore, and with Bush's plan of building a missile defense shield in Europe, which Russia strongly opposes and threatens to cancel many missile treaties; it definitely shouldn't be taken as a joke as Bush is taking it now (so what if he only has about a month left, he still needs to take this all seriously). Let Russia build economic and military ties in Latin America, that's fine with me; but I oppose this missile shield as it will create more problems. I don't think Obama has mentioned anything about the missile shield, can't wait to hear his opinion on it.
| Nick2008 wrote: | ||||
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7783294.stm These past 3 months Russia has been strengthing economic and military ties with Latin America. From doing joint air force training drills with Venezuela or signing an economic package with Brazil. Considering how close Venezuela, Brazil, and now Cuba is to the United States, what are your thoughts on this? I myself can't say much yet. I do not feel that safe anymore, and with Bush's plan of building a missile defense shield in Europe, which Russia strongly opposes and threatens to cancel many missile treaties; it definitely shouldn't be taken as a joke as Bush is taking it now (so what if he only has about a month left, he still needs to take this all seriously). Let Russia build economic and military ties in Latin America, that's fine with me; but I oppose this missile shield as it will create more problems. I don't think Obama has mentioned anything about the missile shield, can't wait to hear his opinion on it. |
I agree, it is a power play. Think Russia is re-building all its ties everywhere that it had to abandon for a while after letting go of communism. It is bonding quite a bit with Syria for example, who is cozying up with Iran as well. It is also talking to Yemen to restart a base there. I am dead certain that the US must be taking careful note of all of this. How much of a threat it is, I have no idea, but possibly this is an attempt at regaining balance of power.
One thing however that is important for me is that Russia is currently in trouble financially as the oil price is way down it had been scoring quite well with the high oil price for a very very long time. The US I would imagine does not need to import as much oil as it has before, so who knows, the US is still one up. It also has its foot firmly in Afghanistan. But yes, South America is strategically important also because of oil, guess the political games are continuing and well worth watching.
As long as further hostilities can be prevented, there's no reason we shouldn't want Russia to become as prosperous and powerful as possible, even if they do get involved in places close to home. After all, we have close ties to many countries close to Russia.
And why should we be concerned about Russian influence being close anyway? It is already close. How far is Alaska from Siberia again?
And why should we be concerned about Russian influence being close anyway? It is already close. How far is Alaska from Siberia again?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As long as further hostilities can be prevented, there's no reason we shouldn't want Russia to become as prosperous and powerful as possible, even if they do get involved in places close to home. After all, we have close ties to many countries close to Russia.
And why should we be concerned about Russian influence being close anyway? It is already close. How far is Alaska from Siberia again? |
Alaska is part of the US, and the Russian Government does not control it, who's that woman again? O yea, Sarah Palin.
Russian influence is close, that's true. But this is the first time that Russia has started a strong military influence in Latin America.
This is the first time the US has started a strong influence on Eastern Europe with their plans to deploy a missile defense shield.
Any connection here guys? This may just be a comeback for Russia in response to the United States' ignorance of setting up a missile defense shield in Europe.
Agreed Nick. It is something to take note off. It made an impression one me too. Sort of balance of power positioning by the two super powers? We should not forget China however. China has been much more shrewd with conquering the world through their economies. Almost every market in the world has been swamped by "Made in China" products and services.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
|
Any connection here guys? This may just be a comeback for Russia in response to the United States' ignorance of setting up a missile defense shield in Europe. |
Eh, we ought to share the missile defense technology, if only Russia could afford to implement it.
The balance of power between superpowers is one factor, but in a changing world (especially with one with countries like North Korea and Iran) Russia is not the only country who's missiles we might conceivably block with a shield.
We just need to keep good diplomatic relations with Russia; it would be far better to think of them as an ally than to think of them as a threat.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Eh, we ought to share the missile defense technology, if only Russia could afford to implement it. The balance of power between superpowers is one factor, but in a changing world (especially with one with countries like North Korea and Iran) Russia is not the only country who's missiles we might conceivably block with a shield. We just need to keep good diplomatic relations with Russia; it would be far better to think of them as an ally than to think of them as a threat. |
If the shield is designed to intercept Iranian and middle eastern nukes, then there's no reason to build it so close to Russia. It's obviously targeted more to Russia than Iran. Why can't they set it up in, lets say Afghanistan or Turkey? Look at the map, since when did the Czech Republic and Poland become a strategic location for intercepting Iranian nuclear missiles? If I was the president, and I wanted to setup a missile defence shield against Iran, I would build it in Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Jordan. These are more strategic points then a country in the middle of Europe.
Then again, George Bush might've never considered consulting a map during his decision.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| We just need to keep good diplomatic relations with Russia; it would be far better to think of them as an ally than to think of them as a threat. |
I think the Russian culture is so far removed from that of the United States, where issues that are raised are discussed in a much more transparent way. Even within the Russian states, the culture is such that nobody really knows where they stand with one another. I agree that they should be treated as an ally, peace at all cost, but they should be carefully watched as well. Think they have a very long history of aggressive pursuit of power along unpredictable lines. Individual leaders tend to be charismatic and ego seeking, need to act defensive of their positions through aggressive acts. The invasian of Georgia for example. Difficult to measure Russia by US standards. Standards are completely different.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
The invasian of Georgia for example. |
Russia didn't invade Georgia, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, killing 2,000 citizens.
RT Report: http://www.russiatoday.com/ossetianwar/news/34631
Fox News Report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXGywlnHaL8
Georgian Ruler eating a tie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBh9D2WIGsE&feature=related
Russia was innocent in the conflict of South Ossetia, they were the peacekeepers, but what I heard in the US news was just shocking propaganda and lies. Obviously the US masked the truth (but that's no surprise anyways
), Russia being a peacekeeper is nothing to be ashamed of. I myself tracked every hour of this war when it was going on, talking to relatives in Russia and watching Russian news. Lol, obviously the US didn't want anyone to know the truth, I mean the US has been funding the Georgian military these past few years, they have to support Georgia no matter what.
Any person who thinks that Russia was the aggressor and they started the war is seriously out of touch... or a 24/7 CNN believer.
Back to the topic, I believe Russia has changed, and is actually quite peaceful. There latest actions show they are more diplomatic and willing for cooperation. The Georgian conflict and their proposal to give away a radar station in Afghanistan instead of the defense shield are a few. The US doesn't see it that way, many Americans think that Russians are war-hungry warriors who want to take over the world... not true
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Russian influence is close, that's true. But this is the first time that Russia has started a strong military influence in Latin America. |
You don't consider the Cuban Missile Crisis even slightly stronger than a few Russian naval vessels?
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| This is the first time the US has started a strong influence on Eastern Europe with their plans to deploy a missile defense shield. |
It may be the first deployment of a missile defense system, but I'd hardly classify this move as greater than (or even comparable to) any of the anti-Soviet defense planning and exercises along the NATO/Warsaw Pact borders during the Cold War. It certainly doesn't compare to the propaganda and espionage during the period.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Any connection here guys? This may just be a comeback for Russia in response to the United States' ignorance of setting up a missile defense shield in Europe. |
Possibly. Most certainly a response to our support of Georgia earlier this year. But Russia's conventional military is hardly a threat to the United States, whether they are playing in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. I'm honestly impressed that they had a handful of surface vessels capable of getting to this hemisphere.
Respectfully,
M
I think the USA and Europe, instead of always looking at Russia as a potential threat should embrace Russia and see them as a potential Ally. I would even like to see Russia as part of the EU.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Russia was innocent in the conflict of South Ossetia, they were the peacekeepers, but what I heard in the US news was just shocking propaganda and lies. Obviously the US masked the truth (but that's no surprise anyways ), Russia being a peacekeeper is nothing to be ashamed of. I myself tracked every hour of this war when it was going on, talking to relatives in Russia and watching Russian news. Lol, obviously the US didn't want anyone to know the truth, I mean the US has been funding the Georgian military these past few years, they have to support Georgia no matter what. |
This is what I found on the BBC News UK Website
I bolded the section below regarding Russia sending its troops into Georgia and bombing it. This news was not limited to the United States. It was International News. It was reported everywhere and people were interviewed on the news! Nick, where did you get it from that Russia were peacekeepers? They were the other party in the conflict with Georgia.
| Quote: |
| Russia says Georgia fighting over
The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says he has ordered an end to the fighting in Georgia. Trouble broke out last Thursday when Georgian troops were sent to a part of the country called South Ossetia, where lots of Russians live. Russia responded by sending in troops, and dropping bombs in Georgia. But Mr Medvedev said on Tuesday he had decided to end the fighting, after making sure Russians living in South Ossetia were safe. After his statement, thousands of Georgians gathered in the capital Tbilisi's main square to hear their President, Mikhail Saakashvili speak. He told the crowd that Russia hadn't stopped fighting, but Russia insists its soldiers are leaving the country. Trouble The violence in Georgia over the last few days has shocked people in other countries. Thousands were forced from their homes, and other world leaders called for an end to the fighting. Control of South Ossetia has caused trouble between the two countries for years. Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia used to be a part of one massive country called the Soviet Union, which broke up in 1991. Differences Since then, Georgia and Russia have become their own countries, and lots of people in South Ossetia want it to be a separate country too. Now, it's hoped the two countries can sort out their differences by talking - not fighting. |
Since when is Georgia keeping peace? They simply ruined it. On the night of August 7, Georgia launches an attack on the innocent, lightly armed city of Tskhinvali. About 100 Georgian tanks, artillery, and lots of men came in and start killing innocent civilians. They killed 2,000 citizens, not army, but citizens. That's a war crime. Notice how US and British media was silent when innocent citizens were dying of bombs. Children were being driven over by Georgian tanks. Georgian troops were throwing grenades at the cellars where unarmed, civilian women were hiding.
So what if Russia bombed Georgia? Show a picture of any sign of serious damage in Georgia because of these "so called bombs", and I'll show you South Ossetia, then we can have a debate.
Under Russian constitution, the Russian president has the right to protect ALL Russian citizens no matter where they are. Russia's attack into Georgia is completely fine, driving away the Georgian troops from citizens in South Ossetia. Prevent another bloodshed, I would do that too you know.
Russia ended the war in 5 days, why? They knew what they were doing and they were peacekeepers.
Interested in reading of some of these war crimes? Look here:
http://www.russiatoday.com/ossetianwar
Quite simply, this was genocide by Georgia.
That was not Russia, that was the Soviet Union. Consider those 2 different countries with different laws, society, and constitution please. Of course it was worse, but I consider the USSR and the Russia Federation two different countries now.
Ever considered that Georgia was being armed and trained by the US? And then Russia had driven them all out in 5 days?
So what if Russia bombed Georgia? Show a picture of any sign of serious damage in Georgia because of these "so called bombs", and I'll show you South Ossetia, then we can have a debate.
Under Russian constitution, the Russian president has the right to protect ALL Russian citizens no matter where they are. Russia's attack into Georgia is completely fine, driving away the Georgian troops from citizens in South Ossetia. Prevent another bloodshed, I would do that too you know.
Russia ended the war in 5 days, why? They knew what they were doing and they were peacekeepers.
Interested in reading of some of these war crimes? Look here:
http://www.russiatoday.com/ossetianwar
Quite simply, this was genocide by Georgia.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
You don't consider the Cuban Missile Crisis even slightly stronger than a few Russian naval vessels? |
That was not Russia, that was the Soviet Union. Consider those 2 different countries with different laws, society, and constitution please. Of course it was worse, but I consider the USSR and the Russia Federation two different countries now.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
But Russia's conventional military is hardly a threat to the United States |
Ever considered that Georgia was being armed and trained by the US? And then Russia had driven them all out in 5 days?
| Nick2008 wrote: | ||
That was not Russia, that was the Soviet Union. Consider those 2 different countries with different laws, society, and constitution please. Of course it was worse, but I consider the USSR and the Russia Federation two different countries now. |
True, but that’s just splitting hairs. It’s still the same country in terms of people, technology, science, history, culture, interests, etc.
| Nick2008 wrote: | ||
Ever considered that Georgia was being armed and trained by the US? And then Russia had driven them all out in 5 days? |
Armed and trained by the U.S. does not make it the United States military. Any honest assessment of Russian conventional military capability, including their disastrous war in Georgia, reveals that they are woefully far behind the United States technologically and have tremendous flaws in terms of organization. (Yes I said disastrous. I challenge you to find one military assessment of that war that states that the war was a glowing success for Russia and demonstrated how much they’ve modernized and how advanced their military is. A public assessment outside of Russia or her allies, that is.)
Have you looked at Russian losses during the war with such a pathetically small country as Georgia? Did you see Russian tanks being towed into combat zones or pushed out of the way of convoys during the invasion because they broke down?
Russia has not purchased any new military hardware in two decades. Russia cannot challenge the United States for any substantial amount of time beyond its own immediate borders.
On a side note, Russia wanted the war in Georgia. The notion that they were “surprised” and simply responded is ludicrous. The Russian military needs conflict and more importantly needs conflict with the West (even by proxy) in order to justify increased military expenditures and modernization.
If you want to get into a seriously long discussion on Russian military capability and how far behind the U.S. they are, (heck, they are even behind the Chinese now), I’m more than willing to do so.
Russia’s military is rebuilding and modernizing. The war in Georgia did demonstrate some organizational improvements (in my opinion) since the 1990s, but nothing of note to brag about. And as long as oil prices remain low, their military modernization efforts will stagnate.
Respectfully,
M
| deanhills wrote: | ||
This is what I found on the BBC News UK Website I bolded the section below regarding Russia sending its troops into Georgia and bombing it. This news was not limited to the United States. It was International News. It was reported everywhere and people were interviewed on the news! Nick, where did you get it from that Russia were peacekeepers? They were the other party in the conflict with Georgia.
|
... considering the USA's continuing involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think we've got much room to criticize Russia's dealings with Georgia...
Georgian losses were more than Russian Losses:
Russia: 71 killed, 341 wounded and 6 captured
Georgia: 144 soldiers killed, 25 missing, 42 captured and 1,964 wounded
So tell me this, Russia ended a war in 5 days with their rusty military. And the US, with their "advanced" technology and all can't even bring order in Iraq? Iraq is only slightly larger than Georgia, and a lot of it is uninhabited, so don't tell me anything about land.
Russia was highly organized in this war in my opinion, they finished the war in 5 days and all was good.
Russia didn't want this conflict, they actually got it by surprise. It took awhile for a military reaction because their was a bit of confusion and surprise.
Russia: 71 killed, 341 wounded and 6 captured
Georgia: 144 soldiers killed, 25 missing, 42 captured and 1,964 wounded
So tell me this, Russia ended a war in 5 days with their rusty military. And the US, with their "advanced" technology and all can't even bring order in Iraq? Iraq is only slightly larger than Georgia, and a lot of it is uninhabited, so don't tell me anything about land.
Russia was highly organized in this war in my opinion, they finished the war in 5 days and all was good.
Russia didn't want this conflict, they actually got it by surprise. It took awhile for a military reaction because their was a bit of confusion and surprise.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Georgian losses were more than Russian Losses:
Russia: 71 killed, 341 wounded and 6 captured Georgia: 144 soldiers killed, 25 missing, 42 captured and 1,964 wounded |
Yes, they were. I have no argument there. But that is not the argument. The argument is that Russia isn’t close (not even remotely close) to U.S. conventional military capabilities.
But since you brought it up I’ll use it to further my own argument.
By your numbers, the Russian kill ratio was approximately 2:1. Modern U.S. kill ratios in battle are significantly higher. For example, the U.S. kill ratio when it defeated Hussein in 2003 was anywhere from 55:1 (Ref. 1) to 326:1 (Ref. 2) depending upon estimates. General Franks’ comments in 2003 regarding the number of Iraqi military casualties calculate to a 217:1 kill ratio. (Ref. 3) Afghanistan has similar kill ratios.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| So tell me this, Russia ended a war in 5 days with their rusty military. And the US, with their "advanced" technology and all can't even bring order in Iraq? |
Does Russia still occupy Georgia (aside from the break-away republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia)? Did they overthrow the Georgian government? The answers of course are no. Even if they had wanted to oust the Georgian government and occupy Georgia, Russia could not without severely damaging NATO and U.S. relations, or even risking war. And do you honestly believe the Georgians would have peacefully acquiesced to being ruled by Moscow again?
In Iraq, 2003, the United States defeated a military fielding approximately 500,000, not including reserves and foreign fighters. By contrast, Georgia possessed a military in total size of about 37,000 at the time of the 2008 South Ossetia War. (Ref. 6) The United States defeated the Iraq military and overthrew the Iraq government in 21 days. It defeated and overthrew the Taliban government in only 71 days (from commencement of the bombing campaign to the end of the Battle of Tora Bora). Ref 7.
Going back to Gulf War I, the United States and her allies defeated Iraq, then the fourth largest military in the world, in only 100 hours. U.S. military capability has only improved since that time.
Can Russia move that many forces to another hemisphere and conquer and occupy two separate countries within two years with so small a loss of life as the United States in so short an amount of time? The answer of course is “no.” They don’t even possess a blue water navy capable of projecting power. If pushed, Russia could not even maintain control of the Black Sea against the U.S. Navy. (However, the U.S. voluntarily limits its naval presence in the Black Sea in accordance with the 1936 Montreux Convention, even though we are not a signatory.)
Russia could not even suppress Georgian air defenses, losing a TU-22 bomber and 3 SU-25s during the war to enemy fire.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Iraq is only slightly larger than Georgia, and a lot of it is uninhabited, so don't tell me anything about land. |
“Slightly” larger? Iraq is more than six times larger! And that includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia. (Georgia: 69,700 sq km, Iraq: 432,162 sq km) (Ref. 4 and 5) That’s like comparing Texas to Tennessee.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Russia was highly organized in this war in my opinion, they finished the war in 5 days and all was good. |
I’ll leave this to General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the Russian general staff. He also makes most of the rest of the argument for me in this article in Reuters from Tuesday, December 16, 2008: ”Russian army not fit for modern war: Russian general”
To further back my argument, here is a general article regarding the Russian military at respected GlobalSecurity.org: Russia-A New Cold War?
And here is an article from the Russian News and Information Agency: Russian Army’s weaknesses exposed during war in Georgia
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Russia didn't want this conflict, they actually got it by surprise. It took awhile for a military reaction because their was a bit of confusion and surprise. |
Actually, the Russian response was very swift, (too swift in my opinion), with large numbers of forces moving in a matter of hours. I believe this indicates Russia was more than prepared for this Georgian “surprise.” (Ref. 8 )
Russia did what it historically does in war, threw a large number of people at their enemy to overwhelm them, brute force. But a modern conventional military capable of challenging the United States they do not (yet) possess.
Respectfully,
M
References:
1. http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/28/usa.iraq
3. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2511
4. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gg.html
5. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
6. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/index.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_(OEF)
8. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200808.chang.russiaresurgentgeorgia.html
| moonspider wrote: |
|
In Iraq, 2003, the United States defeated a military fielding approximately 500,000, not including reserves and foreign fighters. By contrast, Georgia possessed a military in total size of about 37,000 at the time of the 2008 South Ossetia War. (Ref. 6) The United States defeated the Iraq military and overthrew the Iraq government in 21 days. It defeated and overthrew the Taliban government in only 71 days (from commencement of the bombing campaign to the end of the Battle of Tora Bora). Ref 7. |
So why are there still US soldiers and Iraqi's dying everyday? What's the fight for?
Georgia and Russia all had similar weapons, old aging equipment. Russia came in with older equipment and only a few pieces of new equipment. No point of fighting a country with new, modern equipment, since they have old tanks and guns. So obviously Russia needed to get those old tanks moving, old aircraft flying, and those old guns firing. It was the perfect situation. Obviously stuff would break down.
The Georgia-South Ossetia conflict can't tell for sure if Russia will lose against the US. I would believe Russia has much more at their military bases then meets the eye.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| So why are there still US soldiers and Iraqi's dying everyday? What's the fight for? |
I compared Russia fighting a standing military with the United States fighting standing militaries. The current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan combat sub-national, irregular units (e.g. insurgents, terrorists, or other criminal elements). Those are two different things entirely with different tactics, strategies, missions, objectives, and asset mixtures.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| Georgia and Russia all had similar weapons, old aging equipment. Russia came in with older equipment and only a few pieces of new equipment. No point of fighting a country with new, modern equipment, since they have old tanks and guns. |
Yes, there is a point to using new modern equipment. It increases your efficiency at meeting objectives, reduces collateral damage and reduces your own losses. Russia didn't use older equipment by choice, they used it because it’s all they had, as General Makarov pointed out.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| The Georgia-South Ossetia conflict can't tell for sure if Russia will lose against the US. I would believe Russia has much more at their military bases then meets the eye. |
To be honest, I don't see the United States and Russia ever fighting each other directly. The risk of a strategic exchange (even with tactical nukes) is too great. The real question is how does a conventional military imbalance between the two affect their ability to project power and shape events in their areas of interest around the globe. Currently, in my unbiased, unemotional, professional opinion, Russia's military options regarding its interests are limited only to the territories immediately surrounding it, and only to smaller scale operations.
Russia will modernize its military, of that I have no doubt. However they have a number of obstacles to overcome, the least of which is their technological gap with the West and their military-industrial capabilities. (And those are very significant as Russia is two decades or more behind the U.S. in some areas.) I believe the backbone of any military is the people, the professional soldiers, sailors and airmen. And Russia has a serious problem with discipline, recruitment of quality personnel (they do have a draft, but the enlistees are very poor quality since many of those who can are avoiding the draft), retention, and a culture that dates back to at least Stalin if not the Czars in which all of the expertise and knowledge is trusted only to the officers. (And those ranks in the Russian military are not filled by the best of Russia’s young citizens, as many of them are seeking employment elsewhere in Russia, or all too often, other countries.) The Russian military has no tradition and currently does not possess a cadre of professional, expert enlisted personnel like the United States and other militaries of the West. Without the latter, a military loses a dramatic amount of flexibility and efficiency.
Respectfully,
M
it seems like a coming war between russia and usa, like before..
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| it seems like a coming war between russia and usa, like before.. |
The UN would probably stop it at all costs, a war between Russia and USA means all of Earth will die from radioactive exposure.
Who said that Russia's military personnel are dumber than US's personnel, that's a first. Unfortunately I always heard the opposite. Many people told me here that the US has the technology, and Russia has the brains (attacking tactics). Russian's have always been good at strategy. I'm seriously interested for you to tell me where you found that idea of Russia having inexperienced, unprofessional leaders. As far as my concern, having George W. Bush as the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and calling him "experienced" is a far stretch.
If the US has experienced leaders, why can't we come up with something so we can leave Iraq and don't even think of invading Afghanistan? We can never kill all the terrorists, it's like saying we'll wipe out every gang in the US. People join up for pirates, terrorists, and gangs every day. It keeps adding. There's no way to fully wipe out terrorists, no matter how strong or smart a military is. We can't sanction terrorists, we can't make them peaceful (it's more of a belief than an act), or kill every single one.
To some sources, Russia's defense expenditure is the second highest in the world now, behind the US. The Russian Federation is young, only since 1991. The new constitution was ratified in 1993 I believe. For only 15 years, how fast Russia rose from it's feet and it's military advancements is very good. The US hasn't broken up since the civil war, they had lots of time to research technology. So obviously they would be ahead. During the breakup of the Soviet Union, the times of complete darkness in Russia (about 1991-1994), Russia didn't have any time for military funding or researching. They were trying to get the country together. So such a comparison may not yet be suitable. We need to wait some years to see Russia really crack out of it's shell. Maybe around 2012 or 2013?
| Nick2008 wrote: | ||
Who said that Russia's military personnel are dumber than US's personnel, that's a first. Unfortunately I always heard the opposite. Many people told me here that the US has the technology, and Russia has the brains (attacking tactics). Russian's have always been good at strategy. I'm seriously interested for you to tell me where you found that idea of Russia having inexperienced, unprofessional leaders. |
| General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the Russian General Staff wrote: |
| To find a lieutenant-colonel, colonel or general able to lead troops with a sure hand, you had to chase down officers one by one throughout the armed forces, because those career commanders in charge of 'paper regiments and divisions' just could not resolve the tasks set… When they were given personnel and equipment, they simply lost their heads, while some even refused to fulfill the given tasks… So I have a question: 'Do we need such officers'? |
Reference: Reuters, December 16, 2008
| Russia-A New Cold War? wrote: |
| In 2002, a conscript’s salary was only 100 rubles a month, or roughly $3.50. Theoretically, the army provides all necessities, however, housing and food shortages continue to plague the armed forces. Problems with both discipline and brutal hazing are common as well. HIV infection rates in the Russian army are estimated to be between two to five times higher than in the general population, and tuberculosis is a persistent problem.
Such conditions and the poor combat performance of the Russian Armed Forces in the Chechen conflict encouraged draft evasion and efforts to delay their military service. Although the available manpower (males 15-49) for the Russian Armed Forces was projected at 39.1 million in 2004, only a tenth of eligible males did military service. Moreover, military officials complained that new recruit cohorts are plagued by increasingly incidences of poor education, communicable diseases and criminality. That is to say, when only a tenth of the draft eligible cohort reports for duty, this is the bottom tenth of the cohort that lacked the mental acuity to evade military service. The Russian government has stated a desire to convert to a professional army. However, implementation has been delayed repeatedly. Current plans envision a transition to a mixed force, in which professional soldiers fill the ranks of select units and conscription is gradually phased out. Some officials have talked of developing a non-commissioned officer corps to lead the professional army, but the military has yet to make any concrete investments in training or facilities that would begin this process. |
There are other analyses that say basically the same thing. I did not and do not say that Russia’s military personnel are necessarily “dumber” than the U.S. But when you’re paying employees so poorly and treating them so poorly, one cannot expect to recruit and retain good personnel. Would you work for 100 Rubles a month? I know Putin and Medvedev have made the improvement of military personnel living standards a priority, but it’s not going to happen overnight, and to see the gains in quality personnel will take even longer.
Respectfully,
M
The military is supposed to provide all the food, housing, and clothes at the base. So money wouldn't really be needed. Obviously they are paying them more now, in 2008, but remember that they were still recovering from 1991 to like 1995. So obviously to implement a better military time will be required. One general can not speak for the whole military. There will always be critics in the military. One person's opinion doesn't matter much to me. It's a different story if the president said what this general said a few months ago, but he didn't.
Yes, conditions might have been bad in 2002 in some bases. It's 2008 now, conditions are much better.
Like you said, the modernization won't happen overnight.
Yes, conditions might have been bad in 2002 in some bases. It's 2008 now, conditions are much better.
Like you said, the modernization won't happen overnight.
Russia puts her nose too much in other countries business,should sort out their inner problem first.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| One general can not speak for the whole military. |
Since General Makarov is the chief military officer of the Russian armed forces, I believe he can speak for the entire Russian military because his job is to speak for and lead the entire Russian military. His counterpart in the United States military structure is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So I think his opinion matters a great deal, arguably more so than the opinion of anyone else in the Russian armed forces, certainly as it applies to current policy.
Respectfully,
M
Related topics
 |