Black~Enthusiasm said:
Dont be so harsh. As far as I'm concerned, you haven't really linked us to any official documents either, and as such, your replies are devoid of palpable facts too. You seem to think that I pull everything out of my ass, while you speak as if you actualy worked for the russian secret services. So as long as you dont feed us facts, you might as well get rid of your little self-righteous attitude. Thank you.
I did give you facts, you gave me your opinion you didn't even try to sell it as facts.
But if you want to take this to a whole new level, where every bits of arguments must be backed, this conversation is going to be very strained. But here, let me start....
How are the mighty fallen
Jun 30th 2005 | BALTISK AND MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition
From the Economist...
"
According to official figures, the armed forces suffer roughly 1,000 non-combat deaths every year. Military prosecutors uncovered 46 in just one week in June.
This being Russia, that revelation, like prosecutors' other remarks about theft and embezzlement among officers, was seen as a bid to undermine Sergei Ivanov, the defence minister, who is tipped as a possible successor to President Vladimir Putin. Mr Ivanov has promised more transparency over military deaths—a departure from his usual line, which is to insist that military depravity is declining. The normal justifications are that crime and suicide are national problems (“the army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases,†wrote Trotsky, “usually at a higher temperatureâ€)
ut dropping conscription altogether is still not in prospect. Colonel-General Anatoly Mazurkevich argues that if Russia's armed forces—now less than half their size at the collapse of the Soviet Union—shrink any more, they will be unable to defend the country's territory. A counter-argument is that these unreformed armed forces could never repel a serious invasion anyway. “If you've got 1.2m men who've got the wrong kit and can't be deployed,†says one western liaison officer, “the situation is not much better than when the Germans came.†Russia's nuclear weapons are its only real defence against strategic threats. It would be better to make the army lean and nimble enough to tackle local insurgencies and terrorism.
Russian generals have always relied on two strategic superfluities: lots of land and enough people to compensate for the poverty of their equipment, training and feeding. But Russia's rapidly shrinking population, combined with draft-dodging, is threatening the old calculus."
Obviously that western laison officer doesn't know anything. First of all where is a reform which will prevent escaping draft by going to university. Second in a number of exercises this past few years Russian army has prooven its ability to mobilize quickly over its own territory, plus where were several wargames with Kazahstan that established a joint system of anti-aircraft defense, similar exercises will be done with China this year, thats to the point you brought up that Chinese won't be able to defend against american bombings.
This article seem to contradict pretty much the whole base of your argument. Unless, of course, that you can prove to me that you are more informed than this journalist, or the western liaison officer mentioned in this article.
This journalist is obviously working on his public, i mean he simply chose to ignore the reforms being done right now and the what last and this years wargames have shown about the capabilities of the Russian army. I will not deny the deaths resulting from Dedovshina, but morale is boosted during military action, so if where is military action morale would surely be high.
I agree. But Russia's willingness to defend China depends on the reason for the war, which as never been specified. Maybe that in this scenario, China is trying to anexe the whole of south-east Asia, or even siberia, which according to Samuel Huntington, would absolutly terrify Moscow. You have to agree, an hegemonous, all-mighty China certainly wouldn't serve Russia's interest.
Chinese would not do such a thing, maybe you do not realize it but China and Russian Federation are much closer allies then lets say Russian Federation and US. Our alliance is commited to stopping US from interfering with other people's internal affairs and we are acting on it. Also the matter of Chinese invasion of Russia is a totally different matter, if they go against Russia they go against Kazahstan as a well as a military power with superior logistics to their own. I am not saying Russian army would be able to invade China, but we would be able to repel Chinese invasion, mostly because we'll be able to maintain air superiority over our own land, also we will stop servicing of their machinery.
Even if this is just about Taiwan, China would still be the agressor, and it should be dealt with accordingly, for the sake of international laws. So in this scenario, which is the most likely, Russia wouldn't have any reason to join with the chinese either. In fact, it would probably condemn the whole thing, and sit back and watch.
I highly doubt that, but its only a matter of opinion, it can't actually be prooven, not for me not for you.
But in every case, it is irealistic to believe that America would be the agressor. With such an economicaly integreted and wealthy country like China, the whole world is benefiting from its wealth, and it would be detrimental for everyone to wage war and ruin it all.
Hey, i am actually one of those people who support the idea that US would never even try to invade China, this past page i simply been refutting Frotty's ridiculus claim that US invasion of China would be successful.
So in any case, lets assum that China is the agressor, for it is the one who has to gain the most from an expended sphere of control.
According to a study done by chinese generals, "Eighty percent of China's oil currently passes through the Strait of Malacca, and China believes the sea area is "controlled by the U.S. Navy." Oil-tanker traffic through the Strait, which is closest to Indonesia, is projected to grow from 10 million barrels a day in 2002 to 20 million barrels a day in 2020, the report said.
And we all know that China doesnt have a navy capable of matching the american one. Therefore, since China's energy consumption is mainly based on importation, and that the USa are the one country that are very well capable to project its military everywhere in the world, a blockade of China's energy supply would be exceedingly easy to manage.
Actually where were several agreements China has signed with Russia, we will increase our import of oil to China but a wide margin in the next few years, we have a lot of oil, our transistor to western europe, aka Ukraine, is desperately trying to proove to us how we need them so much, we are building a pipe to derectly connect us with western Europe but that will take time, its much easier to build a pipe to China and tell Ukraine to **** off right now.
Well Russian navy might be able to do a lot of damage to US navy, especially since our Far Easter navy is being reequiped with new subs and where is no SOSUS located in that area.
We have things in our arsennal unlike anything US has, for example a guided underwater anti-sub bomb that can detect an enemy sub from 10 killometers away no matter how quiet it is, and collide with it at 125 km/hour. Never before where was a system that was as effective against modern submarines.
And where does nano technology fit in all of this? I mean, since it must be true that you are so ahead of us since you said it yourself, what does it prove? Or do I really have to enumerate every aspects of life where the West is ahead of the rest of the world to shut you up?
I simply gave an example because you for some reason seem to think that Russians are not capable of grasping higher technology, while we are world leaders in many aspects of it in both military and civilian. Also please do list the aspects of life where west is better then the rest of the world, that would be interesting.
Anyway, assuming that russia technology is not half as bad as I think it is, and I do, as long as China wont produce its own comparable stuff, I'll always bet on them yankes in a war.
Why do you think that Russian technology is inferior then even American experts as well as american veterans of cold war claim overwise.
Please give me examples where Russian military tech is lacking then compared to that of US. Justify your case, dont just leave it as a matter of opinion.
But all in all, China's recent wealth can come crashing pretty easely, I doubt that they would be able to manage it very well in a full blown war with the world's hyperpower.
Wow, so you're actually agreeing with frotty, sorry to say but you not half as smart as i thought you were. How exactly can their wealth crash? Please give me a theory.
Here is the link to the article on Mobility-2004 exercises i talked about earlier:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_04/8147.html
here is a passage from another website, which talks about Russian military involvement in Iraq but also mentions the Mobility-2004:
"Mobility-2004," involved 3,000 troops, several hundred armored vehicles and artillery pieces and several dozen support ships and aircraft. This particular exercise was held in order to simulate the deployment of a marine-type military formation to an unfamiliar environment in order to conduct short- and long-term operations. To the Russian military, which has been based for decades on the offensive-defensive Cold War-style warfare, this type of deployment is a new and untested territory. It will call its forces to act on local conflicts happening either deep inside another country or within its coastal regions, demanding mobility and rapid reaction to the constantly changing battlefield environment."
That was an exercise, not a real thing, not a lot of transportational batallions were used, but it prooved that Russia can transport thousands of troops, long distances, with armored vehicles, over short periods of time.
now this is about Russian AA defense system:
http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1999/FTS19990821000218.htm
notice the range, the system can easily provide cover for Chinese territory as well.
this one is about the CIS, the alliance between Russia, Kazahstan as well as few other nations.
http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?volume_id=407&issue_id=3380&article_id=2369935
and here is a little bit of info on Russian-Chinese relations as well as the upcoming military exercises between two nations.
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/ne...104148Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-211297-1.xml
and here is something that discusses the quality of Russian military technology:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FG23Ag01.html
Please feel free to ask me to proove anything else to you, in case i forgot something. I can give you comparitive stats of Russian military hardware versus that of american, if you'd like.
