• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-tested-nuclear-missile/story?id=54123222

Russia’s military on Friday said it had successfully carried out a second test launch of its most advanced nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.

The country’s defense ministry released a video showing what it said was the launch of a RS-28 ‘Sarmat’ missile from a base in Plesetsk in northwest Russia, close to the Arctic Circle.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/rs-28-sarmat/

SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

Home
World Missiles
Russia
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

The RS-28 Sarmat is a liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile currently under development by Russia.
Sarmat at a Glance

Originated from: Russia
Possessed by: Russia
Class: Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
Alternate names: SS-X-30 Satan II
Basing: Silo-based
Length: 36.3 m
Diameter: 3.0 m
Launch Weight: 200 metric tons
Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
Propulsion: Liquid-fueled
Range: 10,000+ km
Status: In development
In Service: 2020-2021 (est.)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
bobbymike said:
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/rs-28-sarmat/

SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

Home
World Missiles
Russia
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

The RS-28 Sarmat is a liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile currently under development by Russia.
Sarmat at a Glance

Originated from: Russia
Possessed by: Russia
Class: Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
Alternate names: SS-X-30 Satan II
Basing: Silo-based
Length: 36.3 m
Diameter: 3.0 m
Launch Weight: 200 metric tons
Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
Propulsion: Liquid-fueled
Range: 10,000+ km
Status: In development
In Service: 2020-2021 (est.)
Just to put that in perspective, that's more weight than a Titan II and Minuteman III combined.
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)



Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
I've seen the high MIRV count in numerous sources. Aren't there treaty restrictions on more than 10 MIRVs?

Also: This mentions an HE warhead. I know the U.S. looked at that for MX and Trident and decided it was fraught with potential for global thermonuclear misunderstanding. Are there indications that the R.F. is looking at conventional ICBMs?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
Brickmuppet said:
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)



Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
I've seen the high MIRV count in numerous sources. Aren't there treaty restrictions on more than 10 MIRVs?

Also: This mentions an HE warhead. I know the U.S. looked at that for MX and Trident and decided it was fraught with potential for global thermonuclear misunderstanding. Are there indications that the R.F. is looking at conventional ICBMs?
Don't know the answer to your second question although with Putin I'd think anything was possible as for New START I believe it is a launcher/warhead combination treaty and you technically could have 100 missiles with 15 warheads each or up to 700 launchers with 1550 warheads. Although to add a wrinkle bombers are "one launcher" no matter how many nukes they carry,
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
http://www.newsweek.com/us-defenses-40-years-behind-russias-satan-2-nuclear-missile-weapon-designer-878785

The United States military is 40 years from being able to counter Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the weapon’s chief designer has claimed.

Vladimir Degtyar, CEO of the Makeye Design Bureau that developed the RS-28 Sarmat—known as the “Satan 2” by NATO—said that the missile’s supposed power will guarantee peace for Russia for decades to come, Russian news agency TASS reported.

In an interview with Konstruktor (meaning “Designer”) magazine, Degtyar claimed the Satan 2 “makes the modern U.S. [anti-ballistic missile] defense systems inefficient, while the Sarmat missile complex will remain effective for the next 40 years” despite the deployment of the U.S. global missile shield.

The RS-28 Sarmat weighs around 220 tons and can carry a nuclear warhead large enough to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France. The missile is being introduced to replace Russia’s Cold War-era RS-36M Voyevoda missiles. Despite multiple delays to the program, Russian defense officials said the weapon would enter serial production in 2020 and will be arming Russian units by 2021.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.csis.org/events/putins-new-strategic-systems-plans-realities-and-prospects

In his recent address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin touted a number of new additions to Russia’s strategic weapons arsenal. His list included a nuclear-armed autonomous torpedo, hypersonic glide vehicles, and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Some of these projects were long in the works, and well-known globally. Others were more of a surprise. What is the status of these systems? How developed are they, and how long until they are fully deployed? What impact will they have on the strategic balance between the United States and Russia? Please join us for a discussion with Leonid Nersisyan on the plans, realities, and prospects of these systems. Michael Kofman, Senior Research Scientist at CNA, will moderate.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/space-symposium/2018/04/18/stratcom-head-dont-doubt-russias-drive-to-develop-invincible-hypersonic-missile/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The head of U.S. Strategic Command would not say whether the United States has seen evidence of Russia’s “invincible” hypersonic missile, but the U.S. military has observed both Russia and China operating hypersonic missiles of varied capabilities, he confirmed Tuesday.

“I won’t give you any specifics about the means we use to watch that. I won’t give you any of the technical specifics about the capabilities of those missiles,” Gen. John Hyten told reporters at the Space Symposium. “But I can tell you that we have observed both Russia and China testing hypersonic capabilities.”

Hyten’s comments come after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in March that Russia had successfully tested a new “invincible” hypersonic missile that could travel at speeds in excess of Mach 10 — twice the Mach 5 speed that qualifies an air vehicle as hypersonic — and with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/07/putins_nuclear_superweapons_113411.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=2fbd684f64-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-2fbd684f64-81812733

We say our nuclear deterrent is our highest priority; Russia says the same thing and really means it. Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian government has announced about 25 strategic nuclear modernization programs which are mainly new systems carrying new nuclear warheads. In January 2017, Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu stated that development of the strategic nuclear force was Russia’s first priority, noting that Russia will “…continue a massive program of nuclear rearmament, deploying modern ICBMs on land and sea, [and] modernizing the strategic bomber force.”[1] Russia sees its great-power status based on its nuclear capability which probably exceeds that of the rest of the world combined.

Putin’s recent claim of 79% modernization of Russia’s nuclear Triad seems exaggerated. However, Russia has modernized over two-thirds of its Triad since the process began in 1997[2] and will modernize the rest before we modernize any of our strategic delivery vehicles in a significant way. Moreover, Russia is expanding its nuclear force. Serious U.S. modernization will not begin for almost another decade in the best case scenario.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/16/world/new-weapons-will-maintain-russias-might-decades-putin-says/#.Wvz6_n8h02w

MOSCOW – Russia’s new weapons, including an array of new nuclear systems, will ensure the country’s security for decades to come, President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday at a meeting with top military brass.

Speaking in Sochi, Putin said the new systems unveiled this year will significantly increase Russia’s military capabilities and “ensure a strategic balance for decades.”
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Capable of Carrying 2 Megatonne Nuclear Warhead

Source: Russian Poseidon Underwater Drone Capable of Carrying 2 Megatonne Nuclear Warhead

"MOSCOW --- Russia’s Poseidon underwater drone currently under development will be able to carry a nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 2 megatonnes to destroy enemy naval bases, a source in the Russian defense sector told TASS on Thursday.

"It will be possible to mount various nuclear charges on the ‘torpedo’ of the Poseidon multipurpose seaborne system, with the thermonuclear single warhead similar to the Avangard charge to have the maximum capacity of up to 2 megatonnes in TNT equivalent," the source said.

With its nuclear munition, the underwater drone "is primarily designed to destroy reinforced naval bases of a potential enemy," the source said.

Thanks to its nuclear powerplant, the Poseidon will approach the target for an intercontinental range at a depth of over 1 km and at a speed of 60-70 knots (110-130 km/h), the source said. "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/193274/russia%E2%80%99s-poseidon-underwater-drone-to-carry-nuke-warhead.html
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.rt.com/news/427014-russian-hypersonic-missile-intel/

Russia’s state-of-the-art hypersonic glide vehicle, which analysts say is capable of easily cutting through the existing US missile shield, will become operational by 2020, reports citing US intelligence have warned.

Speaking to CNBC on the condition of anonymity, sources aware of US intelligence reports, said the Russian military successfully tested the weapon twice in 2016. The third known test of the weapon was allegedly carried out in October 2017, and allegedly failed when the device crashed seconds before hitting its target.

The sources believe the device would be a significant breakthrough which could enable Russian military to surpass US counterparts. The intelligence sources claimed that the hypersonic gliders will get onboard countermeasures to enable them to defeat even the most advanced missile-defense systems.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Let's not forget the Kh-32 (of which the Backfire carries 3) is basically a hypersonic gliding weapon. With a 1,100lb warhead. Mach 5, 1000km.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://special-ops.org/news/terrorism/us-intelligence-indirectly-confirms-existence-russian-hypersonic-weapons/

Citing one of the intelligence reports, a source said the hypersonic glider’s testing involved mounting it to an RS-18A intercontinental ballistic missile (NATO reporting name SS-19).

US intelligence says the vehicle is highly maneuverable, and thus unpredictable and hard to track. It is also fitted with onboard countermeasures which no existing US missile-defense system can defeat. Furthermore, although it can carry a warhead, it is believed that the force of glider’s impact, as well as its precision, may be enough to waste targets.

The intelligence reports, allegedly created this past spring, calculate that the Avangard will likely achieve initial operational capacity by 2020, according to CNBC’s sources.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/01/russia-has-plans-for-its-future-nuclear-subs-and-it-involves-hypersonic-missiles/

MOSCOW ― Russia’s next generation of multipurpose nuclear submarines, reportedly known as the Husky class, will be armed with hypersonic missiles, with the lead boat slated for launch in 2027, according to an unidentified Russian defense industry official quoted by the TASS news agency on Thursday.

“Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles will become the main armament of the newest multipurpose submarine,” the source said, referring to a Russian sea-based hypersonic missile project intended to replace the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles that are common among Russia’s heavier-hitting warships.

Little is known about the Husky-class submarines. They’re called fifth-generation multipurpose submarines in the Russian press and are being designed by the Malakhit design bureau in St. Petersburg, but there is not yet a finalized version of the boat’s design. According to TASS, the Husky class will feature a typical ― or rather typical for Russian subs ― dual-hull design, with a 12,000-ton displacement.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
bobbymike said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.
For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used... To use it, as everyone knows means "judgment day". And keep in mind my pump action shotgun I bought in 1975 will kill you just as well as a new semiautomatic.

Some of those "advanced" ICBMs were bought by Russia to counter SDI, hence we bankrupted them. They are still developing missiles to counter our ABM efforts... Hence, once again we forcing them to send money they barely have on weapons that will never be used.... The Russians did not learn the first time when The Great Ronald Reagan bankrupted them and they are not learning this time either.

Again, my old shotgun will kill just as well as a new semiautomatic.

As of today the usaf is in possession of a true first strike weapon that no one would see coming.... Just 10 b2s (imagine if we had at least 60 or 70) could deliver over a hundred nukes and decapitate Russia before they knew what happened. Once the raider comes.... Once the new cruise missile comes, then wow, what an incredible unseen first strike capability the US will have.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.
For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used...
If ICBMs couldn't be used, and were useless, nobody would have them. Obviously that's not the case.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22039073/russia-backfire-bomber-hypersonic-missiles/?src=socialflowTW

Russia’s oldest bombers could become platforms for firing hypersonic missiles, allowing Moscow to strike targets from long range while slipping under anti-missile radars.

According to a report in Sputnik News, the Tu-22M3 Backfire could be modified to carry four Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” air-launched ballistic missiles. Introduced in 1978, the Backfire is a large, swing-wing nuclear-capable supersonic bomber with a combat range of approximately 3,400 miles. Most of Russia’s Backfires are 30 years old or older and were recently refitted with the new SVP-24 Gefest digital sighting and navigation system.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
131
Russian Nuclear Forces 2018

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912?needAccess=true
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans? Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

While I do not necessarily believe that the US and/or Europe have been overtly aggressive towards Russia, I do think Moscow has a right to feel threatened by the expansion of NATO and aggressive US policies in the Middle-East. Any strategic decision is rarely made in a vacuum. There are inputs which feed and fuel fears. Just as Russia's decision to modernise feeds and fuels American alarmism, so do American policies fuel and feed Russian fears. Perhaps instead of getting alarmed and fearing Russian modernisation, it might be better to talk to Putin and prove to him that America is no real threat to Russia? Or is diplomacy dead?

Questions of morality and ethics appear to be ignored all too often in these sorts of discussions. I wonder why? I suppose it is just much easier to paint one side as the "good guys" and the other as the "baddies".
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Kadija_Man said:
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?
It's conventional forces suck compared to the West. Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.). We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.

Kadija_Man said:
Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?
Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?
'It's conventional forces suck compared to the West. Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.). We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.
I was not asking what sort of country you believe yourself to be but rather is Russia allowed to believe what it wants about it's
"opponents" and act on those fears? After all, you are acting on your fears of Russia. Does Russia have any "rights" in this debate or are tehy to be treated merely as a terrible bogeyman which can be invoked whenever someone in America desires?

Moscow believes it is acting to provide protection to it's people because it believes it's interests have been threatened by American policies. I believe those fears are being manipulated by Putin but I am merely an interested observer looking on. I believe you succumbing to Cold War "Fail Safe" styles of thinking about Russian intentions. Surely the end of the Cold War and all the revelations that attended that indicated how short-sighted those thought processes were?

Kadija_Man said:
Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?
Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)
Ah, but their aggression is defensive - according to them. They are seeking to keep the US and it's lackeys at arm's length, further from their borders. US aggression OTOH appears to be much more aggressive - it seeks "regime change" and control of resources, along with expansion of alliance boundaries. It seeks control of regions traditionally controlled by Moscow/Beijing. While in my view, most of that is poorly thought out, it does have a certain degree of sense behind it. Whereas the American thinking doesn't.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?
It's conventional forces suck compared to the West.
That's unclear at this point. There was a recent RAND study* on this front that argued
that the Russians have, since 2008, largely closed the gap and enjoy some clear advantages
in long range fires, anti-tank munitions, IADS etc.

Quantitively it's near parity and in the Baltic it's not even close. Plus, the Russians have
been emphasizing multi-divisional level maneuver of combined arms heavy units in their
unannounced snap exercises. In comparison, NATO has mostly been, for decades,
moving around smaller, lighter units in exercises.

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.

* https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2402/RAND_RR2402.pdf
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
831
Reaction score
62
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Kadija_Man said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
Kadija_Man said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
marauder2048 said:
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?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Kadija_Man said:
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Kadija_Man said:
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.

Kadija_Man said:
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. . .
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
667
Reaction score
47
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
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.

Kadija_Man said:
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 it’s 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 (Putin’s 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 US’s 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 doesn’t add up about this position.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
kaiserd said:
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s 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.

kaiserd said:
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 US’s 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 doesn’t add up about this position.
And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
Kadija_Man said:
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).

Kadija_Man said:
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.

Kadija_Man said:
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.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
667
Reaction score
47
sferrin said:
kaiserd said:
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s 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.

kaiserd said:
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 US’s 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 doesn’t 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 Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

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 “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
kaiserd said:
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.)


kaiserd said:
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.

kaiserd said:
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 Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).
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?

kaiserd said:
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 “good” 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.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
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...
 
Top