That article has several falsehoods. For example it claims that the US has more surface ships today than it had in the Cold War. That is totally wrong.
It also claims that Russia did force and equipment reductions for economic reasons. Wrong again. The Russians destroyed equipment as part of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe force reductions and other treaties. Otherwise the Russians would just have kept all their T-55 and T-62 tanks in the boneyard. It wouldn't have cost them one cent more to do.
The article claims that it was Putin that restarted development of nuclear weapons. That is again. Wrong. Even during Yeltsin's time they developed the Topol-M and kept it in serial production. Plus they started building silos with Topol-M which did not exist before. Yeltsin's government chose to focus on the strategic deterrent at the cost of the conventional forces to save money.
Even the Chechen Wars did not change this lack of funding of conventional forces, but like the article claims for once correctly, the Georgian War changed this. And why? Because Georgia had been supplied with the latest Western equipment in several cases. Individual digital encrypted radios, T-72SIM-1 with 2nd generation thermal sights, digital encrypted radios, battlefield management systems, modern body armor, etc.
The claim that Europe diverted investment into the military into other areas also kind of falls flat on its face. The whole European Union has been in an economic depression since the Global Financial Crisis happened. Spending on all sorts of investments was frozen and this has led to the current situation.
The problem is less one of equipment, and more that you cannot expect a couple dozen countries, each speaking its own language, to form a single coherent army to fight against Russia.
It also claims that Russia did force and equipment reductions for economic reasons. Wrong again. The Russians destroyed equipment as part of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe force reductions and other treaties. Otherwise the Russians would just have kept all their T-55 and T-62 tanks in the boneyard. It wouldn't have cost them one cent more to do.
The article claims that it was Putin that restarted development of nuclear weapons. That is again. Wrong. Even during Yeltsin's time they developed the Topol-M and kept it in serial production. Plus they started building silos with Topol-M which did not exist before. Yeltsin's government chose to focus on the strategic deterrent at the cost of the conventional forces to save money.
Even the Chechen Wars did not change this lack of funding of conventional forces, but like the article claims for once correctly, the Georgian War changed this. And why? Because Georgia had been supplied with the latest Western equipment in several cases. Individual digital encrypted radios, T-72SIM-1 with 2nd generation thermal sights, digital encrypted radios, battlefield management systems, modern body armor, etc.
The claim that Europe diverted investment into the military into other areas also kind of falls flat on its face. The whole European Union has been in an economic depression since the Global Financial Crisis happened. Spending on all sorts of investments was frozen and this has led to the current situation.
The problem is less one of equipment, and more that you cannot expect a couple dozen countries, each speaking its own language, to form a single coherent army to fight against Russia.
Last edited:
