The Russian airforce has recently resumed long range patrols, approaching the airspace of Britain and Diego Garcia… and I am pleased to say the correct response has come from the US State Department:
“If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that’s their decision,” Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said. “That is a decision for them to take – it’s interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It’s a different era.”
Amen. This is the comment I left on the Telegraph article:
Who cares? All this talk about the resurgence of Russian power is tosh. Just look at the numbers. Even with all their gas and oil, Russia has the same GDP as Italy (and Italy is not an economic monoculture based on what comes out of the ground). Compared to China, the EU and the USA, Russia is, strategically speaking, in the minor league. If the quasi-fascists who run Russia these days want to rattle their little sabre, strut around like Mussolini and pretend they matter, let them. The appropriate response to their antics? No response at all.
I think the murderous actions of the Russian secret service in London are far more worthy of harsh responses than the antics of their military. I suspect a reaction to these military flights consisting of broad indifference and maybe the odd embarrassed snicker is far more likely to enrage the Kremlin than shaking a sabre back at them. The Devil does not like to be mocked.
Compared to the EU ??
Russia can overrun the EU easily, and in short time. The EU is militarily worthless. That’s why NATO, and a US presence in Europe was needed.
The EU (Britain included) are in the fourth or fifth “minor league”. That goes for conventional forces as well as ballistic missiles. There is no comparison at all.
Yes, the EU are just a bunch of bombastic hypocrites. The EU is actually by far the world’s largest importer of fossil fuels — a good part of it gas from … well … Russia. And while the Russian military is just a shadow of its former self, it clearly could still slap the hell out of the French navy and its occasionally-operational aircraft carrier any time that Russia chooses to do so. (No need for the Russians to worry about defeating the Brits anymore — not when a handful of Iranian pirates can reduce Nelson’s finest to grovelling tears).
But don’t worry — any Russian attempt to force its will on the good elitists of the EU will be beaten back by a strongly-worded note (in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Lord knows what other languages) to the UN. Those poor Russkies won’t know what hit them!
Something that the great & good of Europe have not yet noticed — the payback for their years of cheap anti-Americanism is that the EU now stands alone. There is zero appetite among the American people for coming to the support of the foolish folk of Europe. Russia knows this; China knows this; but apparently the leaders of the EU still think that the hand they have so often bitten will come to their assistance.
The EU’s strategic isolation does not matter today. But someday (maybe sooner than we expect, given Russia’s revanchism) when Russia demands tribute or mighty Algeria cuts off the gas supply to the EU in winter or Muslim extremists take over Brussels, the EU’s past self-isolating tendencies will extract a price.
Oh give me a break. Logistically any large Russian army would be hard pressed to make to the Russian border, let alone “overrun” the EU.
Alice:
There might be sentiment in the U.S. for helping the Brits out in a pinch, but the next time Germany (or Russia) decides to take a long weekend and conquer France, no one in the U.S. will shed a tear.
I frankly don’t understand why we (the U.S.) are still part of NATO.
I think you’re missing the point of this post. Hint, it is not about your wounded feeling about those mean old Europeans dissing Uncle Sam, it is about Russia being mildly preposterous when it’s really a paper tiger.
Just mildly preposterous? How about damn silly! If the alarmist State Dept. can feel calm enough to attempt a joke, I think we can postpone our political end-time daydreams
Its a perfect nu-socialist dilemma. Do you back a resurgent Soviet Union (George Galloway is probably breaking out the Cristal as I write) or do you recoil in horror at the colossal environmentally damaging carbon emissions of just one Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’ – an aircraft that almost outdoes the B-52 for its age (maiden flight November 1952 against April 1952 for the B-52)?
Presumably while there is still an appetite for coming to the salvation of all those Iraqi and Afghani civilians?
Russia could *not* overrun the EU (without exercising the nuclear option). One big problem with the continental militaries is that they’ve barely reformed to be relevant in a post- Cold War theatre.
That is, they’re mostly made up of large land armies – unwieldy and pretty much immobile beyond their respective borders. So they’re just fine for a defensive war, which is precisely what they were designed to fight when the Soviets were menacing Western Europe. The modern Russian military wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance.
Fine. So the security of Europe is based on the failures of Russia, i.e. – on they supposed inability to move their army. Not, mind you, on the defensive capabilities of Europe, which are non-existent.
If we compare military capabilities and materiel of Russia vs. Europe – Russia is superior by far.
Basing your defense on the supposed failures of the other party, rather than on you own capabilities is a dubious proposition.
I mean – it’s ok to ridicule the Russian army, but making that the corner stone of EU defense is patetic.
Besides, as stated above, Russia doesn’t have to move it’s soldiers or planes to get what it wants – all it needs to do is what it did to Ukraina – close the spigot on the flow of oil for a day or two. EU is helpless.
The idea of Russia invading the EU is frankly hilarious. This isn’t the Cold War – Russia doesn’t just pick up the Soviet military where the USSR left off. Instead the Soviet military has been rotting away for 20 years during which time the Russians havent had the money to maintain it.
And Russia’s resources “weapon” is illusory. The entire Russian economy is dependent on oil and gas sales – if Russia stops the fuel, the EU countries stop the money, and Putin will last maybe 3 months. The EU countries, whilst admittedly not coming out well, will last much longer, being able to replace a lot of the shortfall with other imports, coal and nuclear.
All this latent macho-posturing is nought more than an attempt to rally support around the Putin regime in preparation of the 2008 Putin step down. The Russians have to much invested in the EU and far too many pockets in the motherland will be hurt should they take this posturing any further. After 2008 these nouveau cold war gestures will be stopped.
They’ve shut down Auntie btw. Foreign propaganda they say.
Defend against what???? Why exactly does Europe needs all that much military capacity. If a real threat emerges Europe has the wealth to build real military capabilities and Russia does not.
How do you figure that? How much Russian equipment is actually serviceable?
So basing you defence of the actual threats you face is dubious? Hmmm.
Well, I haven’t done research lately, but I figure they have some few thousand combat aircraft, some tens of thousands tanks and some 2 million soldiers +.
How much of that is in working conditions ? I don’t know. Do you ? Does anybody ? If it’s not well maintained, they could bring them up to date fast.
How many of these goodies are available in EU ? (That was a joke).
How well prepared and equipped are EU armies ? Were the 10,000 soldiers that GB managed, barely, to deploy to Iraq (and their equipment) in tip-top condition ?
I agree that a conventional war between Russia and the EU is a remote possibility.
As to unconventional war (missiles) – the missmatch is even greater.
Branding Russia a third rate power sounds funny when you consider who is doing the comparison.
From most reports I read (you really need to subscribe to a few services like Janes) I’d be surprised if they could put more that a couple hundred in the air at once and also by most accounts their pilot flight hours are pathetic.
Most of which are obsolescent
Most of whom are poorly motivated poorly trained conscripts and who have the longest set of borders in the world to defend. Exactly how many will be available for Putin’s Mighty Euro-Blitzkrieg do you reckon? I’m shaking in my boots. The Russian army poses a credible threat to, oh lets see, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and that is about it.
Maybe the tanks, but I’m a little doubtful there. Crude diesel engines might store just fine without maintenance. Aircraft and electronics cannot stand neglect. Somehow I don’t see 2,000,000 draftees conquering Europe with tanks and artillery pieces of dubious maintenance history and aircraft unlikely to get into the air at all. That’s before asking how many soldiers can actually be sent outside Russia’s borders before their internal security situation goes all to hell. Then we should ask how many of those conscripts have even shown up and trained: by some estimates, fewer than half.
How well prepared and equipped are EU armies ?
If you honestly believe that Russia is as far up to speed on maintenance of those weapons as France and the UK, then I can’t help you.
I’ll take paper tiger for $200, Alex. The UK military has suffered unacceptable neglect over the course of the Blair administration, but even so they’ve still got qualitatively better people and better equipment for those people to use than most of the rest of the world (leaving aside the fracking embarassment that is the SA-80, obviously not designed by a rifleman. Gene Stoner’s patent surely has expired by now?)
The UK also has one other advantage: They may be about the only country (although I think abandoning certain others would be shortsighted of us) in Europe that could expect help from a rather large former colony-turned-ally. Actually, a few former colonies: Australia and Canada actually have reputations as well, even after a few decades of wussification.
There’s a lot of talk about the US military being “overstretched.” That talk comes from people who can’t seem to grasp that operational tempoes of one year in theater in any three is historically a fairly light workload. I suspect (without actual proof, admittedly) that similar comments about the strain on the UK’s military are firmly rooted in a similar poor foundation.
It seems that you and I have had this discusscion before: Putin is a bully. At heart he only understands one message: “You go your way and I’ll go mine. You cross me or mine and I’ll fuck up your entire world.” The only thing that will influence him is credible defiance, and that does not come so much from numbers. Rather, it comes from the fact that some people actually have the sack to stand up to scum like him, even if your approach involves the fetal position.
It’s worse than that Perry.
A few years ago the RAF briefly flirted with the idea of leasing some MiG-29s. They were cheap and Eurofighter was delayed. Even with Western standards of maintainance they would only have one third the serviceability of say an F-16.
And frankly, does anybody honestly believe that a Bear or Badger could penetrate anything other than a 1950s air-defence net? OK the Backfires are a bit better and the Blackjack is probably quite hot but it’s not even clear if any Blackjacks are serviceable.
Now, a mate of mine is a CNC-fitter and he reckoned this is because we banned the export of triple-axis CNC machines to the Sovs so their machining wasn’t of the highest order. This was done initially apparently to prevent them making high quality sub screws. Apparently the USN and RN sonar lads could identify individual Russian subs by the faults in their screws.
My wife has lived in Russia and speaks the lingo. Your description of average Russian squaddies as “poorly motivated poorly trained conscripts” is charitable. People amputate their own toes to avoid the Russian draft.
Last I heard (dunno where!) the Rooskies were downsizing their army to less than 1 million, as they oculdn’t afford more and what they had was barely capable of crushing a few rebels in Chechnya.
They were flirting with an end to the draft.
Britain alone already has 100000 troops, 25,000 permanently in Germany.
Russian tanks don’t have Chobham or depleted U, let alone the fire controls of German, French and British tanks.
Incidentally, Jacob, you can only die once, so if the Russians aren’t frightened by the UK’s 160 nuclear warheads(sorry, strategic nuclear warheads), then they must have a great many more population centres than we supected.
And if we were all dead, why worry about blowing up our ashes over and over again?(Nya nya ny nya nya!Got yer ruins! Skit!).
Of course the German Army was about 400,000, and the French.
And what’s this? We’ve actually gone ahead and built the ‘obsolete’ Typhoon.
Never mind the French deterrent.
Our host Mr. De Havilland is often a perceptive & trenchant observer of the global scene — but on this issue he seems to have been blinded by Euro-liberalism. Too much time in Londonistan, maybe?
The probability of a resurgent Red Army marching into the liberal haven of the EU is undoubtedly low. Russia’s real strategic issue lies to the east, where under-populated resource-rich Siberia borders over-populated resource-poor China.
But it would be foolish indeed for EUnuchs to assume that they are safely in the clear, that Putin’s moves are simply empty posturing for his domestic constituencies. Remember this is the same Russia which literally bombed Grozny flat, with barely a tremor of concern from the usual European left-wing suspects. We may not understand the game that Russia feels itself forced to play.
The silliest of all the liberal nostrums is, “It takes two to make a quarrel”. ‘fraid not. And bloated, rich, self-indulgent, disarmed Europe is a tempting target in an increasingly testy world.
Note that the reason the Russians bombed Grozny flat was that a handful of rebels armed in part with zipguns had fought their spetnatz to a standstill.
But that does not answer the question of how does Russia’s conscript army and decrepit airforce actually pose a credible threat to Europe? How and under what believable circumstances? I really do think you underestimate how hollow Russia really is economically and institutionally. There are threats to EU security that the EU wilfully ignores, I just do not think Russia’s military is one of the more important ones.
Not sure how that relates to any putative (or even Putinative… sorry) threat to Europe from Russia’s dismal military. I am less concerned with what the political class in Russia think than what can they can actually do militarily. The answer I am drawn to on the evidence I have seen is “not much”, which is why (for once) I think the US State Department is right not to get overly excited. I just cannot take the Russian state’s pretensions very seriously.
China on the other hand…
Putin has no need to “over run” the E.U. – it will do whatever he tells it to.
It even obeys China – which is thousands of miles away and does not sell Europeans oil or gas (or any other raw material). For example, the stern lectures the E.U. gives to Taiwan about upsetting the P.R.C. in any way.
On the military side even the Daily Telegraph has noticed the miltary cooperation (via the Shanghai pact) between Putin and the P.R.C. (and a few puppets). The Chinese military is engaged in a vast military build up, and has been for some time.
Sometimes I wonder if all this effort is worthwhile against the West.
After in the United States computer systems are still not well protected (against either hacking or hard attack) – in spite of warnings that have been made (to my knowldege) since at least the 1980’s.
As for the rest of the West (leaving aside the United States) – the other nations of the West are of no account (period).
By the way I say “even the Daily Telegraph” as (for example) the very issue in which I read about the latest exercises between Russian and Chinese military forces in Central Asia (some puppet state or other) also contained a snearing reference to “Ronnie” Reagan about him not signing the “law of the sea” (as if this U.N. absurdity was a good thing) and a favourable review of the latest death-to-America film from Hollywood.
I read in “Janes” that France had 20 combat ready battalions. (UK had 40).
Aren’t they counting in divisions any more ?
Well, if Russia waits for a cold winter and shuts off the energy, Europe could find a whole new use for the term “Cold War”.
Of course that would be suicidal for Russia unless they found other buyers like China and India to buy it. But even then, pulling the plug on Europe would generate enough of a surplus in Asia that the price would drop and Russia may drop with it.
Also, I’ve heard several Samizdatistas in the past make the claim that Russia’s nuclear threat is still substantially viable. What percentage of their weapons have to work to qualify as a credible threat? I imagine aiming and launching would depend a lot on context. In the context of a larger war, or in the face of total internal collapse, why wouldn’t they attack?
So many failing nations have used war to prop up the government. It’s not like Europe has the best track record in judging these situations. And regarding the present capabilities of Russia, Stalin had such a badly compromised military that he had to fall back and regroup after an encounter with Finland! But with the U.S. for a sugar daddy… All it would take is for somebody (China?) to, for whatever reason, assist Russia’s conventional military infrastructure. Russia already has a massive nuclear capability which would be the one thing they wouldn’t be able to build quickly with outside help. I think we are staking too much on who, how and for what purpose China will help various nations. I suspect China will do what is best for its empire, not necessarily the living standards of its own people.
How about a major equipment malfunction when the winds are out of the east and blowing across Europe? Or how about a submarine reactor malfunction off of the coast of France? Or (a little more seriously) how about drunk (or for some other reason) officers getting orders confused and launching something? Do you really want to launch some of those 160 UK nukes to defend against an act of drunken incompetence? The very weakness of the Soviet Military is a threat to world peace, especially as regards their attractive Siberian flank wagging temptingly in China’s direction.
I am more than a little dubious of treating Russian’s obvious weakness, growing incompetence, and crumbling military infrastructure as an unalloyed good. I suspect some of their belligerence is to disguise their vulnerability. Since we don’t want them and Europe doesn’t want them, I wish they were strong enough to defend themselves against those that do.
My prediction is that Russia will treat China like they treated the Nazis and China will reciprocate much as Nazi Germany did . At that point, all this talk of how the pleasure of western lifestyle will have all the bad guys distractedly wallowing in decadence will be seen for the mistake it is.
It would be better if we understood now that not everyone finds our life style irresistible. We need to understand that there always have and always will be people who prefer power to comfort. [Insert Santayana quote here.]
On that point, Mr. de Havilland, the proper answer is probably, “More than the average European believes”. But one has to expand the concept of “militarily” beyond the old-fashioned idea of a marching army.
After all, conventional wisdom is that the Russians successfully killed a chosen individual in the heart of Londonistan and suffered no consequences about which they care. If the Russians can poison one individual in London, is it possible they could poison the whole damn city if they so chose? But there is an international treaty against doing that sort of thing, the EUnuch plantively bleats. Right!
The world is changing. The nature of warfare is changing. The objectives of regimes are changing. Yet the “leaders” of Europe are still stuck in the metaphorical mud of Flanders.
Russia is the only large country in the world which is self-sufficient in energy. EU needs Russia far more than the Russians need the EU. Which is why Russia will probably be able to get whatever it wants from the EU without firing a single shot.
As for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s recent joint military exercises — that is probably a case of Russia keeping its friends close, and its enemies closer.
One might speculate that things have been going quite well for Russia so far. The USA has effectively been neutralized — a future President Mrs. Rodham-Clinton knows that her own Congressional Democrats will impeach her the very same day she commits any US military forces overseas. The EUnuchs are happy to waste their days uselessly carping about imagined US wrongdoings while studiously ignoring Russians murdering Chechnyans, Chinese raping Tibet, and Muslims committing genocide in Darfur. The Chinese are focused on Taiwan & the hated US instead of the soft underbelly of Russian eastern Siberia.
The key question for us all to ponder is — What do the Russians really want? Whatever it is, they are well-placed to get it. And the EU’s military “power” barely figures into the equation.
Why are Paul Marks and Alice putting bold capitals on some of their words?Is it a software flaw?
Or some half-arsed attempt at communicating between the lines?
It is definitely irritating on the eye.
Anyway, al this 40/20 battallion stuff is not really the point.
The troops that INVADED Iraq were numerically inferior, and that was a massacre.
The last serious attempt by a Russian type force to invade was the Egyptian Sinai campaign against the Bar-Lev line in 1973.(Against approximately equal technology).
They relied on a limited WW1-type advance to no further than the range of their defensive missile system, and tried to stay put.
It worked against uncoordinated counter-attacks by Israel.
Then their Syrian allies in the Golan started getting the shit kicked out of them(one Centurion is supposed to have brewed fifty Russian tanks-type forgotten, possibly T62?), so the Egyptians tried a little mobile warfare in support.
As soon as they left their defensive missile screen the Israelis cut them to pieces in open desert, routed them, then followed them back across the canal.
You have to remember that they didn’t just use Russian hardware.
They used Russian command and control, Russian tactics and at least in 1967 the Syrian artillery crews were ‘technical advisors’.
From Russia.
Since 1990 the defensive missile screen technology of the Russians has been proved to be totally neutralised by – yep- manned aircraft.
Bearing in mind that half the former USSR is now in NATO,(and we have studied all the current hardware at leisure for several YEARS),just where will they invade?
Moscow?
And what exactly would all these ready-to-go divisions you think Britain and France need be defending us against?
pietr I often use capitals (even though I know it means shouting on the Net), because I am too ignorant and lazy to use italics on a comment.
However I did not use capitals (as in CAPITALS) in my last comment – so you have got me confused.
As for computer systems.
Hack them (civilian systems are still not well protected).
E.M.P. them (miltary systems are sort protected to a certain level, civilian hardly at all).
Or just blow them up.
As with the retired Marine General who opened a U.S. Navy wargame by blowing up the Blue side computer systems (with simulated attacks).
The game was restarted as this was not “fair” – so he declined to “play” on.
Actually (having just looked) Alice has not being using all capitals (as in CAPITALS) for recent comments either.
Please explain pietr.
As for using bold presentation for letters – I have no more idea how to do that (for a comment here) than I have for how to use italics.
As for as I can see nothing in any of my comments is in bold.
But perhaps my system is not showing it.
Still on the miltary point:
As the West will obey Russia and China on most things (for example I can not even see the United States comming to the aid of Taiwan in a few years – and Taiwan will most likely just continue developing into a puppet of the P.R.C. anyway), I do not see why they should bother to attack.
Famous last words.
No.
From a strategic perspective, one of the interesting things is that Time Is Not On Anyone’s Side. This is in marked contrast to the Cold War, where some argued that the Soviet Union was bound to collapse eventually, and hence Containment was a Viable option for the US.
In contrast, russia has that problem of their indefensible eastern Flank, and their declining Population. While china has the Other demographic issue of 10 – 20 million Surplus teenage males — fodder for an internal revolution if they are not expended in an external war.
The EU has the demographic problems of an aging population and rising non-assimilable Muslim immigration, along with a huge & growing need for imported fossil fuels and an industrial base that is migrating to China. And what role will India play?
One possible future for the EU is being squeezed dry to provide the resources Russia needs to become a tough nut for China to crack. With suitable double-crossing, Russia might encourage China instead to march through the Stans to Iran and the Middle East, acquiring the resources it needs and dooming the US and what is left of the EU.
If the EUtopians continue to play at being irresponsible teenagers in an adult world, they will really have no options beyond taking whatever crumbs others decide to leave for them.
Here is a more likely future… Russia overplays its weak energy card, causes a big economic hiccup in Europe and the EU (or whatever comes after the EU) finally starts building nuclear powerplants in earnest so that Russia becomes totally irrelevant.
It must be a dsiplay quirk.
Some of the first letters of some words look ‘bold’, that’s all.
Appears on Perry’s last post too, so if nobody else gets it I am probably witnessing more ‘wonders of Linux’.
Paul,
The only currently feasible way to launch an EMP attack is a nuke and I suspect people (though possibly not Asmadasahatter) will think very carefully before pulling that lever.
pietr,
It must be the “wonders of Linux” ‘cos I ain’t getting it in XP. Interesting comments on the Arab/Israeli thang. I somehow doubt the tale of the magic Centurion. They were admirable tanks in many ways (everything could be fixed on ’em with just two spanners) but they were critically bad in range.
Mid,
I think you’re right that a very weak Russia is not good. But they’re still only rattling a very rusty sabre. But they do indeed have a lot of nukes and they are a great leveler. And my understanding is that even during their spectacular military collapse in the 90s the Strategic Rocket Service still got full funding. Is a Putin successor mad enough? I fucking well hope not. I quite like Europe in it’s non-radioactive state.
Alice,
Whilst I am not a fan of those corrupt fools in Brussels I am a European and I do like Europe and I would prefer it if you didn’t use the phrase “EUnuchs”. I’m probably being over-tetchy or maybe I’m just piggy-rotten sick of hearing Americans/Canadian/Australians etc slagging Europe which is after all the only continent named after some tart who got raped by a bull (can someone please explain that?) We’re pissed off enough with the EU to not require the RoTW to point the fact out all the fucking time. If, on the otherhand, you are European or domiciled here, I take it all back and applaud your righteous anger.
I was going to post a link to a picture of some Euro coins but it would appear they have now added Norway to the design. Previously, without Norway, Sweden looked like a flaccid penis and Finland like the associated pair of testicles. Somehow I thought this deeply appropriate.
Here is Alice’s answer:
If the EUtopians continue to play at being irresponsible teenagers in an adult world, they will really have no options beyond taking whatever crumbs others decide to leave for them.
At this moment it seems indeed that there are no threats, so you need no army. As long as the yankees are out there taking care of nuts like the Taliban and Saddam…
The “end of history” is here. Universal and perpetual peace have finally arrived, and will stay with us forever.
Farewell to arms.
Someone found the true reason for Global Warming: it’s the end of the Cold war.
As to Taiwan, I’m not worried. The Chinese are no fools. Some money will cross the straits, and some arrangement will be found. Taiwan will survive. Money solves a lot of problems, therefore it’s good to be rich, and the Taiwanese are.
Reading in Linux, looked back, did not notice any Bold Capitals or Bold Capitals.
Using FireFox.
Nick M:
Ha!
On another matter, Alice’s frequent use of trite derogatory terms like “EUnuchs”, “EUtopians” and “Londonistan” is rather demeaning to her argument.
Regarding Russia’s indefensible southern border, I believe that’s why Russia will continue to field a strong nuclear deterrent into the future. And I think it would be folly to assume that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is in a state of maintenance characteristic of other parts of the former USSR’s military apparatus – this most important of strategic assets would be absolutely last in line for post-Cold War Russian military budget cuts. Even if there are some warheads in poor condition (they have thousands, so they can afford to let a few go to pot), it’s a pretty safe bet that the Russian military authorities are – and will be – well aware which parts of their nuclear arsenal are in good working order if it ever needs to be deployed.
It’s my opinion that Russia won’t give up Siberia under any circumstances, which will be defended with nuclear weapons if necessary. Twenty million spare Chinese males isn’t such a daunting prospect under such circumstances – nor is the rest of China’s population.
It strikes me that they are very apropos. I am doing my personal best effort to avoid word play ad hominems, but it is taking a diligent effort because many occur to me in every thread.
Perhaps the pain of her wordplay is to be found in how close to the truth they strike. When an insult hits a target, it is like two rocks striking together. Whichever one of two is stronger wins. The EU would not feel the insults if it was stronger. And as an American, I find sensitivity to insult coming from Europeans to be amusing, at best.
Grow up, boys. You sound like whimpering playground outcasts. Certainly you Nick, have never held back on a clever insult when one occurred to you. How many spellings of Ahmadinejad have we all witnessed? Double standard?
James,
I agree with your assessment of Russia’s attitude re Siberia. But I believe the way things will reach that point or the old fashioned way. As in Molotov-Ribbontrop -> Barbarossa, with a nuclear component.
As Alice and others have pointed out, both the governments of Russia and China have given up full socialism.
They are hardly free market places – but then the West is not either. The West is full of endless rules and regulations (no they do not guard against various bad things – the rules and regulations make the various bad things worse), crushed by vast “entitlement programs”, and has credit bubble financial systems.
China (for all its problems) does not really have a worse economic system than, say, Britain (not that is much of an achievment) and it has a vastly greater population – so in the end its economy will be much more powerful.
I would even argue that the United States can not claim to have a better economic system than China (one does not have to be a protectionist to wonder how it can be less expensive to make things in China and ship them accross the Pacific than it can be to make things in the United States and sell them locally – even farm products seem to be Chinese now, apple juice from China?).
There is something basically wrong with the United States economy and it is not “high wages” – in fact the gap between American wages and Chinese wages (although still great even in P.P.P. terms) is smaller than it has ever been.
And as China has three times the population of the United States eventually……..
“So what?”
The “trouble is” that whilst Russia and China have given up full socialism they have not given up evil (yes it is as simple as that).
The governments of these countries often do bad things – simply because they like doing bad things.
And, of course, there is the point that the Chinese dictatorship and the Putin de facto dictatorship have no other basis, other than force and fear, for their own existance in office.
The alliance between Putin and the Chinese and various “third world” types is not really about economics – it is because they like being evil (again as simple as that).
They get a kick out of supporting the Iranian regime, or Comrade Bob in Africa, or Chevez in South America.
Sorry but bad guys do exist (i.e. people who do bad things because they like doing bad things), and Putin is one such bad guy – and so are lots of people in the Chinese regime (indeed the Chinese regime is structured so that bad guys get to positions of power).
This does not mean they are going to nuke us to tomorrow.
However, if they can ever do the West harm (without dying themselves) in some way or other (from having computers hacked, which the Chinese government ordered some time ago – just to see if they could, to supporting the Iranians, to……) they will.
Because they get a kick out of doing bad things.
They may be middle aged and in suits but they are “down with the West” people – they have the mentality of street gang criminals.
I didn’t post my rebuttal to Alice lightly. I actually thought about it. OK. I’m now holding my hands up. I now regret clicking “post” on that one. For four reasons-
1. As Mid points out I am not above using similar phraseology. Double-standards – guilty as charged.
2. Alice capitalized the EU in EUnuchs so it was clear quite what she was referring to.
3. I was being childish. This is Samizdata and I was reacting as though it was one of the more moronic “Europe is doomed” comments on LGF.
4. As Mid also points out it did hit the mark and that’s probably the real reason I threw my toys out of the pram.
So, sorry Alice. You were right and I was stupidly intemperate about it. But I’m nowhere near as sorry as I am that we’ve allowed the nutcases, morons, shysters and surrender monkeys of Brussels to control us without a shot being fired. As Mid guessed, it’s not your neologisms that I’m pissed about it’s the fact that they’re pretty much true.
Jacob,
You really think that Russia could overrun the European Union? The Russian Army is falling apart these days and the only reason it has been able to kick ass in Chechnya is the fact that the Chechens are so poorly armed and weak! It’s like sidekicking a puppy and calling yourself a martial arts master.
No, I’m not really sure. It’s a close call…
If Russia’s army is falling apart, Europe’s is nonexistent.
I think that if Russia prepared for war, and brought it’s army into shape, it could, within a year or two, get to the point where it could overrun Europe (leaving the UK out). There’s nobody in Europe to stop them. This is an improbable scenario but it is, in theory at least, possible.
I think it should be remembered that France and Britain do have nuclear weapons, so even if Russia did invade Europe successfully, there wouldn’t be much of Russia left by the time the Russians reached Scotland.
MikeT,
My serious concern is two-fold. One is to look at how pathetic the SU was at the beginning of WWII, pre-nuclear arsenal, and how that played out, and compare it to how they are now except with a nuclear arsenal, and I think concern is at least not to be abandoned.
The other thing that comes often to my mind wrt Russian, is the old saying “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” For that reason alone, I think we should fear a Russia with only the nuclear hammer left in its toolbox.
On that line, I wonder if the method of assassination in the UK was a statement of “We still have nukes!” as much as anything else.
Oh, really? “Londonistan”? How is that not emotive hyperbole? Sure, the British “ruling classes” seem to be more than a little flaky on the issue of radical Islam, however it’s somewhat premature to be declaring the capital city of the USA’s chief ally as some kind of caliphate. As for the “EUnuch” and “EUtopia” labels – the use of these constitutes poor, lazy writing. Fark, there’s more than enough factual material to slap the EU around with. Hold off on the puerile – and, as I said before, trite – cliches; they cheapen an argument.
As this quote appears to have been in response to a comment I made, I’ll take this one. Mid, you realise that I’m Australian and we generally aren’t lumped in with the “we’ve evolved beyond hard power” continental Europeans? I personally believe very strongly that hard power has a time and place. Moving right along…
I disagree. Russia’s military was, in its original Soviet guise, designed for large scale force projection. What we see today is a force much degraded. It undoubtably can’t project military force in a way it could’ve pre-1991.
On the other hand, the postwar militaries of continental Europe were/are more-or-less defensive. They were designed to repel a pre-1991 force, and they’re largely unchanged today. They were built to check a Soviet invasion – and they undoubtably have the capacity to cope with its modern, diminished incarnation – a Russian thrust.
Ah, James Waterton? Nick M said, and I quote “I am a European”. “Boys” is plural, you can work out that I was addressing more than one of the commenters and comments? My comment re “Europeans” and insults stands.
As for Londonistan, how many of the terrorists practicing their art in the UK come from the other ‘stans’? The UK is in fact, harboring as many successful outside of the middle east terrorists as some of the ‘stans’. “Londonistan” is not as far fetched in the context of disregarding threats of violence as you might wish. Personally, I don’t think London mentality has much if any bearing on Perry’s opinions, rather I think that we have a different view of the problems that lie eastward, are nuclear and can arise in the possible alliances. But it is not absurd that an another outsider’s view is that Londoners are prone to writing off threats of violence. It has been official policy for years. Red Ken? Incidentally, the term ‘Londonistan’ originated in Europe, France to be precise. It is also the title of a book by a British author.
As for cheapening the argument, it is her argument, not mine. I leave that judgment between her and Perry as the site’s owner.
I should add, James, that I have never had the perception of insults coming from Australians. Europeans are in a class by themselves in that category.
I am a little confused by your vicarious sensitivity on behalf of ‘The Continent’ as I am by Nick’s defense and identification with it. I have that rather American assumption that the North Sea is what divides Europe and North American 🙂
Regrettably, that assumption is fading as the EU marches on.
Russia isn’t going to invade Scotland or France. But it might definitively find some pretext to invade the Baltic Republics, also maybe stage an anschluss with Belarus, and stir up some rebellion in Georgia and come in to help the “Georgian people”. Things along these lines.
What will Europe do ? Nuke Russian cities and risk retaliation from a stronger Russian nuclear force ?
As to European armed forces – they are much reduced relative to what they were during the Cold War. They are practically impotent. You can’t stage any defence with nonexistent forces.
Nick M — No offense taken, no apology necessary — except on my part for misappropriating terms like EUnuch & EUtopian from that incomparable Canadian writer Mark Steyn.
I spend a lot of time on both sides of the Atlantic, and I am often dismayed by the casual invective directed at the US by nominally educated intelligent Europeans — not just by Guardianistas and those shut-ins who spend too much time with the BBC. Don’t they recognize that their words have consequences?
Too often, Europeans remind me of a 16 year old girl, slagging her parents for everything from their responsibility for slavery to their non-existent fashion sense. But no matter how often that 16 year old girl demeans her parents, if she passes out at an all-night party and wakes up with her knickers round her ankles she knows she can still turn to her parents for help & support. All-forgiving parental love is a great thing — but the US is not Europe’s parent. Something that too many of us Europeans have forgotten, I fear.
Sorry, Mid, perhaps the tone of my comment was a little sharper than I intended. Nor was my whinge aimed at any comment you’ve made, which were typically temperate and well-argued. My point was only supposed to be a brief one – that I find the frequent bandying about of terms such as the ones mentioned above to be out of keeping with the high standard of debate amongst commenters here. I certainly share the sentiment behind the aforementioned terms, but – as I said above – they cheapen an argument. They’re no better than that stupid “AmeriKKKa” slur certain elements of the left likes to deploy, and just as indefensible – which makes me confused as to why you’d bother.
If you think I’m rushing to the defence of the EU, that’s not correct; I just think there are much better ways to criticise it than resorting to creaking old cliches.
that should read “and their usage is just as indefensible”
One day I will learn to proof-read my comments before posting…
Just had a quick read through the Telegraph thread Perry posted in – man, there are some epically dumb comments there!
Just remember the words of Metternich (or was it Tallyrand?): Russia is never as strong as it looks; and Russia is never as weak as it looks.
As for the bombers, guess we’ll be seeing clips of this sort of thing on YouTube ere long.
Something to keep in mind with antiquated bombers is that, unlike fighters, they can wear their age well. The (American) B-52 was rolled out in March of 1954. The last aircraft was built in 1962. Under present USAF plans, it will not be retired until “at least 2040”. At that point the aircrafts’ ages will be from 78 to 86 years old. They have of course been vigorously maintained and structurally rebuilt. But except for ECM changes in the seventies, the designs really haven’t been changing much since the sixties.
I am currently starting a book titled “Democratic Breakdown and the Decline of the Russian Military” by Zoltan Barany. I’m looking forward to having my opinions changed and expanded.
Amendment, they will be all ‘H’s at the younger end of that age span. The older airframes were destroyed as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks treaty in 1992?
Mid, yes but… At least once in their long lives those B-52s have had pretty much complete structural rebuilds. I think that was in the 70s and it cost more than the original purchase price. Somehow I don’t think Sov/Russian maintainance is too hot and I also doubt their aircaft had anything like the original build quality of the Boeings.
Nick, I pretty sure the tale of the fifty ‘kills’ was true, but only as they were the last surviving tank of the platoon(the others knocked out early on).
Ama bovvered?
I will try and get a citation for the story.
The crew did!
By the end of the first day of battle, the Syrians (who at the start outnumbered the Israelis in the Golan 9 to 1) had achieved moderate success. Towards the end of the day, “A Syrian tank brigade passing through the Rafid Gap turned northwest up a little-used route known as the Tapline Road, which cut diagonally across the Golan. This roadway would prove one of the main strategic hinges of the battle. It led straight from the main Syrian breakthrough points to Nafah, which was not only the location of Israeli divisional headquarters but the most important crossroads on the Heights.”[26] During the night, Lieutenant Zvika Greengold, who had just arrived to the battle unattached to any unit, fought them off with his single tank until help arrived. “For the next 20 hours, Zvika Force, as he came to be known on the radio net, fought running battles with Syrian tanks—sometimes alone, sometimes as part of a larger unit, changing tanks half a dozen times as they were knocked out. He was wounded and burned but stayed in action and repeatedly showed up at critical moments from an unexpected direction to change the course of a skirmish.”[26] For his actions, Zvika became a national hero in Israel.
The truth(Link) is slightly different then.
Here’s another(Link)
A fascinating article, in the Asia Times about the decline of relative US power.
Russia is contemplating the possibility of taking on the US. EU is not an obstacle for them. An attempt to belittle their military by an European sounds unserious.
Nick M,
Early in its life, the B52 had what can best be described as “lets try it this way instead” structural rebuilds. (Think C5A wingroot rebuilds) My impression is that since that time, the rebuilds have essentially rebuilt it the same.
Aircraft age is measured in many different ways. Engines, for example are generally measured in hours. Airframes, on the other hand, are measured in “cycles”. Take-off, pressurization, de-pressurization, landing. Airplanes that have been sitting, stored properly, have not been accumulating cycles, therefore structural rebuilds are uncalled for outside of the normal cycle count.
This, combined with the long term usefulness of bomber designs, is probably why so very many B52 airframes were required to be destroyed by START. From the descriptions, it was a horrific site to any airplane lover. A massive guillotine chopping off the wings, and then chopping the fuselage into pieces. The destroyed aircraft were left laying out in the open so the opposing side’s satellites could photograph them.
My point re Soviet bombers is that Putin could, by contracting out maintenance jobs the military is not trustworthy to do, still have a viable bomber force rather quickly. Their fighters are as interesting as they have ever been (SU-37?). Bearing in mind that they have never been better than western fighters for any great length of time, I don’t think things in the air have changed as much as we might think. There is of course stealth, but if Russians had it working in a serious way, we wouldn’t know about it, and if our people did know about it, they sure wouldn’t announce that they did.
In summary, I think Russia’s problems are concentrated in personnel and they could have a strategic force rather quickly. Tactical is presumably quite another story.
(disclaimer, I haven’t read Barany’s book yet. My mind may change when I do.)
Jacob.
You are a fool.
Hitler also said that one good kick would bring the whole, rotten structure falling down.
Or was that your other buddy, Goering?
pietr, thanks.
He didn’t miss by much…
Jacob,
That certainly was very sobering article for anyone clever enough to get past the usual anti-American anti-Iraq war hyperbole. The author didn’t even always point out the full weight of the data. For example, he points out that Chinese military spending is about 10% of the US amount, but he doesn’t go on to point out that:
And the article’s author doesn’t even raise the topic of ‘bang for the buck’. Depending on what you think a dollar buys when the Chinese military spends it and what it buys when the US military spends it, they could darn near be at a practical parity.
Most sobering. Incidentally, it is not like we have to take his word for it. The data is pretty generally available.
Well, I mean, Jacob old boy, persistent argument is one thing, but I’m presenting facts here and you’re carrying on regardless.
Don’t mean to diss you particularly, but you seem to be a little like the Kraut commander in that dreadful ‘Battle of the Bulge’ film.
Seriously, in about 1971 they got all the surviving British and German commanders from 1940 and simulated the invasion of Britain down at Sandhurst in a ‘Wargame’.
The result was that the Germans suffered a defeat, something like 40,000 casualties without even penetrating the defences behind the beach.
Here you go.
In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the “Stop Lines” (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of British Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was made to surrender.[4]
Tk Computerware released a computer simulation called Britain Invaded! (aka Operation Sealion) in 1985.[5]
pietr,
Hitler did conquer all of Europe except the UK. Without American help, he would have been able to hold on. France and Russia crumbled. Btitain, while maybe able to defend itself, could not, alone, beat him.
It was “general winter”, and his own madness (his overreach) that brought Hitler down in the end.
Yes, Western Europe is defenceless now, even more than it was in 1940.
What seems to have escaped Perry in his post is that Russia, under Putin, is changing. One aspect of that change is rearming. Russia has embarked on an ambitious rearming and modernizarion program financed by it’s high oil revenues.
The flight of the “bear” is only one aspect of it.
Russia is rearming in reaction to the gradual encirclement by the US and NATO of its territory. The US is trying to use the same tactic that Hitler used, but instead of using its armies it is turning to the installation of US cronies; pseudo Democratic leaders who come to power in coups called “democratic revolutions” financed by the CIA who then join NATO. The US is trying to strangle the big Russian Bear into submission, but it fails to see that Russian pride has been and is being hurt and the Russians are reacting. Hitler had a big advantage when he invaded the Soviet Union and so is the west now. But in 10 years time Russia will have the second largest fleet, the most modern air force and a revamped army and nuclear capability. Russia has got enough resources to flex its muscle and it is starting now. Our arrogance in viewing the Russians as “Ruskies” will spell our downfall. In Chechnia the US tried to repeat what it had done a decade before in Afghanistan by covertly supplying Basayev, Kattab and his CIA trained mercinaries with the most sophisticated arms. Putin scored a big victory there. It was the turning point. Russia is modernising its military capability accross the Board. Unless we tone down our arrogance, Russia has the resources, the know how and the people to take on the Mighty United States as the major global superpower whether we like it or not.
Oh please. Have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe and talked to people there? I have. The ONLY thing keeping the communists in power was the Red Army and when Soviet power decayed, the fall of communism in eastern Europe was inevitable. It was seen (correctly) as a system imposed by the Soviets (and is why Russia is still so widely despised) which had very little true local support.
Also you seem to have no concept of the economic realities or the catastrophic demographics that face Russia. In 10 years from now, there will be about 5% less people in Russia (1 in 20 people less!). Russian male life expectancy is 59.12 years, which is worse than Bangladesh! It has a GDP of Russia (using the more-favourable-to-Russia purchasing power parity method) is $2.07 trillion… the EU’s notional GDP is $14.4 trillion, the USA’s GDP is $13.9 trillion and China’s GDP is $7.0 trillion.
Sorry Realist but the idea that Russia is a superpower is preposterous.