Register here

Author Topic: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans  (Read 50568 times)

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #225 on: July 09, 2018, 12:45:26 am »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow.  It was why the Warsaw Pact was established - to prevent a repetition of 1812, 1914 and 1941.  It was intended to keep those pesky west Europeans away from the borders of Russia.

Will it?  I have no idea.   They perceive NATO as an alliance against them.   Coupled with apparently aggressive policies from Washington, it appears that their modernisation plans are justified.  Not that I agree with them, but I can at least attempt to understand matters from their perspective.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 458
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #226 on: July 09, 2018, 01:50:16 am »
Odd, when I said that I got shot down.  I think there is a clear connection between the EU/Nato borders moving eastwards and the Ukraine war/conflict.  Perhaps a world bank funding for the nations that made up the warsaw pact group would have limited opportunities for such problems.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #227 on: July 09, 2018, 05:21:27 am »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation.  Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine.  Sounds like they're projecting.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #228 on: July 09, 2018, 02:12:01 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow. 

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. 

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat.  Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #229 on: July 09, 2018, 09:51:09 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation.  Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine.  Sounds like they're projecting.

In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   Just as Washington has concerns outside it's borders, so does Moscow.   I would suggest that those concerns are nearly as valid as those of Washington.  Both believe they are acting out of the best intentions - from their perspectives.   Neither side appears to be willing to consider things from the perspective of their opponents.   Without such understanding, people fall into thinking of their opponents as "evil" which is IMO a mistake. 

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #230 on: July 09, 2018, 10:19:41 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow. 

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. 

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat.  Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

What needs to be understood is that Gorbachev represented very much a break with traditional Russian thinking.  He realised that basically no one represented a major existential threat to the fUSSR/Russia.  Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence.  Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact.   They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact.   Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces.  It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War.   To Moscow, that promise was broken.   Normal Russian strategy thinking, under Putin has re-asserted itself.   He uses it to back his regime.   Just as Trump does.   When coupled with apparently (from Moscow's perspective) aggressive US policies in SW Asia, Moscow feels it needs obviously to rebuild it's aging nuclear forces.    Perhaps instead of aggressive counter-policy, Russia needs reassurance about it's position in the world?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #231 on: July 10, 2018, 04:54:16 am »
In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler).  But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory?  If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East.  Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #232 on: July 10, 2018, 09:02:51 pm »
In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler).  But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory?  If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East.  Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.

And NATO keeps expanding.  The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders.  The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered worthless from Moscow's perspective.  Then we have the already mentioned apparently aggressive US policies in SW Asia,  which appear designed to destroy Moscow's influence in the region.   The point is that in both cases, Russian paranoia is reinforced, not diminished, while Washington appears unwilling to address that.

What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they?   Afterall if it is good advice for Moscow, surely it is good advice for Washington?  Will we see US forces depart South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe?

In reality both nations have interests other than their own defence and that s why they deploy their forces outside their borders and near their edges.  It is why the Russians are in Syria and why the US is in Korea.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #233 on: July 11, 2018, 05:24:30 am »
And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders. 

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO.  Also, this is by request.  It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining.  On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they? 

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today.  East Asia is another matter thanks to China.  Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 451
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #234 on: July 11, 2018, 03:08:36 pm »
And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders. 

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO.  Also, this is by request.  It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining.  On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they? 

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today.  East Asia is another matter thanks to China.  Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .

And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons itís NATO allies and commitments? Your oldest and truest friends and allies who have fought, bled and died with you, cast away?
Why would the US do exactly what one of your principal adversaries (Putinís regime) desperately wants you to do?
Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the USís closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesnít add up about this position.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #235 on: July 11, 2018, 04:46:18 pm »
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons itís NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments.  Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the USís closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesnít add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 04:50:24 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #236 on: July 11, 2018, 08:34:35 pm »
Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence. 

Thus Gorbachev signed START. And the Russian's started their first round of strategic modernization
before NATO expansion (Bark, Topol-M and Bulava).

Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact.   They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which
were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact. 

Hence the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty that Gorbachev signed.
Ratifying its various updates over the intervening decades has been fraught. But it's an open
area for improvement.

Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces.
It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War.   To Moscow, that promise was broken.

Baker and Genscher both made proposals to Gorbachev on NATO expansion but those
never ended up in a treaty.

But a treaty on sub-strategic nuclear weapons that at least the Baker proposal
was in part tied-to never materialized either.  NATO's military decline
and non-threat are both obvious and verifiable;  Russian sub-strategic nuclear weapons
are not.


Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 451
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #237 on: July 11, 2018, 11:28:45 pm »
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons itís NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments.  Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the USís closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesnít add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.

It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.
It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.
And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russiaís defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italyís).

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like ďgoodĒ communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #238 on: July 12, 2018, 05:07:33 am »
It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.

No, not really.  If you've gutted your military so you can spend it on social programs that's not called "holding up your end".   (How many operational tanks and fighters does Germany have?  Operational mind you.)


It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.

No, but it is factually correct to say that if they can't field a fighting force commensurate with their GDP and population that they aren't holding up their end.

And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russiaís defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italyís).

If only it were dollars that shot down aircraft or defended terrain.  Unfortunately it's tanks, planes, and missiles.  Does Germany have as many of those as Russia?  Will Germany be buying as many missiles, planes, ships, and armored vehicles as Russia?  Nuclear weapons? No?  What was your point again? 

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like ďgoodĒ communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

I never said I think what Trump is doing is "normal".  We didn't want business as usual.  That's why we put him in power.  That's why we'll do it again in 2020.  This isn't rocket science. 

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe. 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:13:09 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Desertfox

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 16
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #239 on: July 12, 2018, 03:25:53 pm »
Quote
Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe. 
Because it is still way cheaper than bailing them out of yet another World War...