Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes Minister/Prime Minister was a very clever program that hid a lot of truths.

The point remains, the nuclear deterent works even in the event of 'salami tactics' because the opposed force doesn't know when any one slice is too many.

Also need we discuss the value of nukes when one side has them and the other does not.

Nuclear brinkmanship is a more subtle skill than it appears it gives the power a strong hand in the international poker game. Which is why its preferably limited who has that power.

If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?

They do leave their silos... Into the hands of private "collectors" to help fund the retirement of Russian generals

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes Minister/Prime Minister was a very clever program that hid a lot of truths.

The point remains, the nuclear deterent works even in the event of 'salami tactics' because the opposed force doesn't know when any one slice is too many..

If you want to read that closely in to it you might want to watch the whole episode to get the full context. The debate wasn't about dropping nuclear altogether, but about whether the UK should upgrade from Polaris to Trident.

The point made was that you couldn't just neglect conventional force because you have a nuclear deterrent, as important as that might be a strong conventional army is still essential.

To be more blunt about it, having a nuclear deterrent and nothing else means your only arms option is a nuclear deterrent. You can't say "I'm going to park tanks on your border now." All you can say is "I have my finger on the button." It's an immediate escalation to MAD, which is a really limited (and potentially hazardous) Plan A.

Nuclear deterrent should be Plan G at the least

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?

A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.

I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marinecowboy"

 LordofHats wrote:
To be more blunt about it, having a nuclear deterrent and nothing else means your only arms option is a nuclear deterrent. You can't say "I'm going to park tanks on your border now." All you can say is "I have my finger on the button." It's an immediate escalation to MAD, which is a really limited (and potentially hazardous) Plan A.

Nuclear deterrent should be Plan G at the least

Nuclear deterrent was plan A, wasnt it. At least in the pacific.
Thats why Cuba happened, the US had missiles within striking distance of Russia, No wonder Russia tried the same. Months later the US system was dismantled. The US might have written history on its side, Over here anyway. Won the war by themselves, went from no where to the moon, maybe.

Might be the Khaos talking or at least the but....

the ancient wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?

A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.

I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marine"

They don't even have the ability to build helicopter carriers so they also don't have the ability to build normal aircraft carriers.

They also don't have the economic capacity to improve that ability or even to undertake such a project in the first place.

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

Oh how wrong.

1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.

Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.

Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

You mean like the US now? If theyre not after the drug or oil trade, they dont give a gak.

They could let the oil flow, Russia is the Imperium. Yeah that game you like. Throw bodys at the problem. Itll go away.

 Orlanth wrote:


Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy.

And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

Oh how wrong.

1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.

Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.

Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...

1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind.
4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one.
5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)?
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?

Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy.

And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.

Not really.
Maybe that is true for a small group of uppity Muscovites, but for most Russians, the situation did not change much from the 80s. Russia's recent economic growth was more about getting back to the 80s level after everything was destroyed in the 90s. What makes you know so much about Russian people that you can say they can't do without luxury items? And what luxury items are you talking about anyways? What kind of item would suddenly be unavailable?
Look at Russian history. Look at everything the Russian people had to go through in the last century alone. How could any current economical problems ever be significant next to suffering of the 90s? Next to the genocide and famine our grandfathers had to suffer? You do not understand the Russian people. An entire nation's character does not suddenly change entirely in a few years.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

Oh how wrong.

1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.

Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.

Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...

1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind.
4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one.
5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)?
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?

Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.

1. True, but Russia was never about economic power.
2. Dismissing a permanent place on the Security Council as unimportant only shows your ignorance of international politics. It may be a legacy from the days of WW2, but so are the seats of the other members. It still gives them a large amount of international importance.
3. A lot of Russia's arsenal consists of outdated Soviet missiles that are no longer needed today. But there is a significant amount of newly developed missiles and modernised missiles as well. Doubt their operationability at your own peril.
4. For Russia, Ukraine is to the west.
5. Because those factors are important when determining a nation's power (and thus influence) You will note that all the most influential and powerful nations in the world have massive populations, land masses and natural resources. No exceptions in all of world history.
6. Being the only nation with access to reliable, operational manned spacecraft makes the Russian space program kinda important. If the EU would pull funding, they would destroy their own space program as well, which relies mostly on Russian ships and facilities.
7. The keyword is control. When you control the entire state, it is easy to prevent any blunder from becoming public.
8. Most US military technology is also more than 20 years old. The decayed part is really something from the 90s. What is now in active service is modernised and well maintained. The old stuff and rusty stuff has mostly been put in storage to be shipped to some 3rd world country.
9. Tanks! lots of tanks! Thanks to Soviet priorities, Russia's military industry is much more advanced than its civilian industry and survived the 90s mostly intact.

The oligarchy no longer controls Russia, that was in the 90s. They were mostly elimated by Putin and replaced by a new elite of chekists. They and the middle class all have lived through the 90s. Any current economical trouble is nothing compared to that. Apart from a small elite, most Russians are still used to having a lower living style than their northern European and American counterparts. Present Russian economy is not that much higher than 1990 Soviet economy.

Everyone under estimates the mother land. Theyve been smashed to the wall again and again. Theyre still standing.

I think ive read reports of us silos filling with water too. meh.

The Us has its own kgb, nkvd, fsb. Names change, the song remains the same. Dress it up how you like. If the US had been around for as long as eastern europe, we would all be wearing mind control bands

I'm surprised nobody has asked the logical question of where they would base this carrier if they built it.

The Black Sea? highly unlikely.

Murmansk? Unlikely.

The Baltic via Kallingrad. Maybe, but as soon as it sets out to sea, everybody would know about it.

The Far East? Seems the most likely place. Maybe the Russians are thinking long term about backing China over Taiwan or some other crisis in the area.

Maybe the Aral Sea.

In the water maybe

By the time they're ready for operational deployment, the water will have left it behind.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy..

The Saudisare working to a script written in Washington.

Still the Russian economy is not torpedoed, the Russian economy is an island and cant be sunk.
Sure the numbers of roubles may be less but Russia sees through that, most in the West do not.

It doesn't matter if Russia has big numbers or small numbers in the national balance, what matters is the supply of food vodka and oil. RTussians can setle for less and frwquently do, this is the true test of resilience.

We in the west cry dire poverty when we lose a few creature comforts, it takes a lot more to faze Russia.
Take the Crimea, the local economy IS past collapse, cut off and heavily sanctioned. However even when the entire annexed province is fethed and even local governbment executives queue for bread and potatoes. Yet support for Putin is very strong, resolve is strong and the Rodina factor is kicking in.

Most western nations complain like pussies if things are only slightly as bad. Greece for example, and Greece is an unfair example because they are in the gak. I have no doubt the UK, US or France would behave no better in similar straits.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.

Russia is a hard place and people tend to be resilient. Sure they have colour TV's and internet now but its still -30 in winter, supply problems still exist.
Also Russia has made sure that even in the gak times what they need to get through gets through. People aren't having their TV's or internet taken away, are given relief if they cant pay basic bills. Entertainment is to be found, as is vodka and reasonable amounts to half decent food. I would rather be poor in Moscow than poor in London.

Russia has a less selfish attitude towards utilities and infrastructure, wheras in the UK the only consideration is how much can be gouged from the populace. It also helps that Russia makes everything they actually need, and any consumer luxury item they desire is only a land border away from China.

Russia is de facto economically resilient more so than most if not all western countries,, and this is despite the West mamking a real go of making things hard to the Russian economy. When the Us wants a country to go belly up fiscally, it normally happens, not in Russia it doesn't. Especially because the real player of global trade - China is not playing on the same side.

 LordofHats wrote:
But North Korea is so cool. Have you seen the state mandated hair cut? Sure they're starving, but with hair like that the corpses must look pretty good. That's a country that has its priorities right

Agreed. As we all know-NORTH KOREA IS BEST KOREA!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

Oh how wrong.

1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.

Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.

Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.

Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...

1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind.
4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one.
5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)?
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?

Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.

1. True, but Russia was never about economic power.
2. Dismissing a permanent place on the Security Council as unimportant only shows your ignorance of international politics. It may be a legacy from the days of WW2, but so are the seats of the other members. It still gives them a large amount of international importance.
3. A lot of Russia's arsenal consists of outdated Soviet missiles that are no longer needed today. But there is a significant amount of newly developed missiles and modernised missiles as well. Doubt their operationability at your own peril.
4. For Russia, Ukraine is to the west.
5. Because those factors are important when determining a nation's power (and thus influence) You will note that all the most influential and powerful nations in the world have massive populations, land masses and natural resources. No exceptions in all of world history.
6. Being the only nation with access to reliable, operational manned spacecraft makes the Russian space program kinda important. If the EU would pull funding, they would destroy their own space program as well, which relies mostly on Russian ships and facilities.
7. The keyword is control. When you control the entire state, it is easy to prevent any blunder from becoming public.
8. Most US military technology is also more than 20 years old. The decayed part is really something from the 90s. What is now in active service is modernised and well maintained. The old stuff and rusty stuff has mostly been put in storage to be shipped to some 3rd world country.
9. Tanks! lots of tanks! Thanks to Soviet priorities, Russia's military industry is much more advanced than its civilian industry and survived the 90s mostly intact.

The oligarchy no longer controls Russia, that was in the 90s. They were mostly elimated by Putin and replaced by a new elite of chekists. They and the middle class all have lived through the 90s. Any current economical trouble is nothing compared to that. Apart from a small elite, most Russians are still used to having a lower living style than their northern European and American counterparts. Present Russian economy is not that much higher than 1990 Soviet economy.

1. Russia has a de facto G8 economy which is currently in the sin bin. That doesnt mean the G8 was able to wave a magic wands and make the factories disappear.
2. Permanent member status means that the Un can issue no formal sanction against Russia, it will get vetoed.
3. I question how much of the other western arsenals are operational. This sort of data will be classified on a level only a handful of people in the country concerned will know. It would make sense for Russia to maintain a paper presence at some nuclear installations if free Maskirovka to go with downsizing. Besides you don't need 30k warheads to feth the world, even a tiny fraction of the soviet arsenal has to work to ensure MAD.
4. Ukraine is in Europe and inhabited by white people. Most adventures occur in fringe countries filled with blacks or arabs.
5. India is a different case, not too different because India is a power in waiting slowly growing. But the majority still wear robes and live in a preindustrial society. They have a space program and villages where the common transport is the Mk1 donkey.
6. If you want to live to reach orbit and live to come home fly Soyuz. By the safety record US spaceships are akin to ork technology.
7. Enough said. The main difference is that Russia (and Israel) don't pussy out when it comes to using their intelligence agencies offensively.
8. You know that rusty 20 year old Russian stuff has a word for it: reliable. The US mobilised national guard fo Iraq and sent them on patrol in 50's transports. UK gear is made in the third world by the lowest bidder and is gak when new.
Russia can provide bulk low tech solution or on a smaller scale advantaged technologies. As the US has also cut the active military to IIRC two brigades for immediate reaction, and I would hate to think what we now have in the Uk post cuts, Russis is doing ok.
9. I don't think Russia needs that many tanks, personally I think the spending there is ringfenced in the way western expenditure is ringfenced outside of legislative control. Putin doesn't control everything.

 Orlanth wrote:
9. I don't think Russia needs that many tanks, personally I think the spending there is ringfenced in the way western expenditure is ringfenced outside of legislative control. Putin doesn't control everything.

There is no such a thing as too many tanks. Tanks are cool. Especially KV tanks. Russia should start producing KV tanks again.

I can't tell if thats a plan to destroy the stronk Russian military or if you just want to see derpy "Stalins housetank" kv-2's.

the ancient wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?

A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.

I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marinecowboy"
...

We won the Cold War too cupcake don't you forget it. You know how we stop Russia getting a carrier much less a super carrier? Sit back and fething laugh at one of the giants laid low. One pissant strong man dictator does not an empire make. The Russian army can't even make it's recruiting quotas with a draft, and vaunted Russian heavy industry can't even maintain the surface combatants it has now, and those were so poorly manufactured sailing with the Iranian navy's speedboat flotilla is safer.

Russia wants to try and make a carrier? Cool. I'll pop some popcorn for the outtakes of the resulting failures. Hell, when you have to pay the French to build your ships for you because their yards simply are not capable.... not to mention we're talking about a failure of a navy that couldn't even get a proper CATOBAR carrier when it was strong and had actual financial backing. Nukes and a pretension of strength is all Russia has left. No pride, no respect, and quite shortly, no money.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has asked the logical question of where they would base this carrier if they built it.

The Black Sea? highly unlikely.

Murmansk? Unlikely.

The Baltic via Kallingrad. Maybe, but as soon as it sets out to sea, everybody would know about it.

The Far East? Seems the most likely place. Maybe the Russians are thinking long term about backing China over Taiwan or some other crisis in the area.

The Sino-Russian relationship is not a close one as one might think. Remember there were division level tank engagements between the Russians and Chinese not too damn long ago.

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.

Oh how wrong.

Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.

Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.

For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor

Russia is a second string player that is still convinced it's a super power.

 LordofHats wrote:

Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.

For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor

Russia is a second string player that is still convinced it's a super power.

Rather.

Their ability to nuke things is literally the only influence the Russians can claim to have at this stage. And considering even the Indians can do that now, it's hardly even worth boasting about anymore.

That's what I was getting at earlier And I'd go further and say it's not "hardly worth boasting about." It just plain isn't worth boasting about. No one takes a nuclear deterrent seriously when that's the only threat you can offer and I don't think anyone puts any real stock in Putin's threats. He's far too interested in getting richer to go blowing up the world.

I'm sure Russia itself realizes this, which is why they want to build new tanks and a super carrier, but that just exposes the weakness of Russia further I think.

 LordofHats wrote:
For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor

That's not true. They also got attention on the world stage for cutting off gas to it's neighbours

 LordofHats wrote:

For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor

OK lets run with this. China also largely keeps quiet, are they unimportant?

 LordofHats wrote:

Russia is a second string player that is still convinced it's a super power.

They know they are not a superpower, they also know they can be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


We won the Cold War too cupcake don't you forget it.

China won the Cold War. They gained the most.
They are still 'commes' and the west are making concessions not th other way around.

The Cold War came to a successful conclusion because of moves made by Thatcher, which were later aped by Reagan.
The US policy was one of stalemate, it was Thatcher who maneuvered the victory.

"Americuh feth yeah, we won the cold war" is barstool politics with a wobbly stool.

"Keeping quiet"

and

"Not being paid attention to"

are two vastly different things. Your comparison is utter gak, pointless, and makes me question why you even said it.