Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe said:

It is far from clear that it would be in China's interests to support Russia to the extent that would be required to seriously deflect its decline. Indeed it is likely that Russia will become increasingly dependent upon China as it grows weaker, and that the relationship will ultimately benefit Beijing far more than it does Moscow. I don't see the strategic imperative for China to move much beyond "win-win interactions" to actively bankrolling the Russian state, and if Beijing ever were to commit to that level of support, akin to the kind of support the United States provided to Japan in the wake of WW2, that support would itself likely come at a cost to the sovereignty of Russia and its credentials as a great power, just as it has for Japan. The Soviet Union was very generous towards the PRC back when it dreamed of maintaining the latter under its thumb, and that generosity evaporated as it became clear that the PRC would not accept the role the Soviet Union envisioned for it.



This is not true. Russia's enemies are the United States and NATO, both of which are continuing to grow or will at least sustain their populations via immigration. The demographics of Ukraine or certain other Eastern European nations might be worse than those of Russia, but this is unimportant.



This goes without saying. France, the UK, and Germany have all been greatly diminished over the past century and rendered subservient to a greater power in the United States, as Spain was before them. Prussia was literally extinguished and its homeland Konigsberg is now occupied by Russians.

Click to expand...

Natural resources are enough to make Russia a major player in any trade relationship.

And immigrants are not a military metric. Any country with economic reforms can attract immigrants. It does not mean that the loyalty of immigrants will be maintained in a war environment where no one will even be able to pay the rent.

Lethe said:

It is far from clear that it would be in China's interests to support Russia to the extent that would be required to seriously deflect its decline.

Click to expand...

It is. Anything else would put Russia at risk of being couped and becoming another NATO puppet like Ukraine, right next to China's land borders.

Lethe said:

The Soviet Union was very generous towards the PRC back when it dreamed of maintaining the latter under its thumb,

Click to expand...

Thats quite a misleading and oversimplified way of trying to paint the Sino-Soviet relationships, particularly with Stalin.

Lethe said:

Russia's enemies are the United States and NATO, both of which are continuing to grow or will at least sustain their populations via immigration

Click to expand...

That must be why anti-immigrant white supremacist parties keep gaining bigger footholds within those countries politics, lol. And the US life expectancy keeps declining what the European countries are indeed sufferring from old population and immigration is not enough to keep up with that.

Net migration figures in Europe in 2021, by country. Specifically about Russia, vast majority (91%) being citizens of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries. Central Asians make up the most numerous group, followed by Ukrainian citizens.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Russia wouldn't require anywhere near the support Europe or Japan got after WWII even if it's driven out of Ukraine and Crimea. It's an important point that I have to raise yet again: Russia's homeland is untouched by this war while Japan was firebombed and nuked to ashes.

The only support China need provide is regular trade with Russia. Some semiconductor fabrication equipment here, a few advanced machine tools there and Russia will be A-OK. In return, China gets secure access to the resources it needs.

Click to expand...

Russia could well be "ok", in the same sense that e.g. the UK was "ok" after WW2. Its people could become healthier and more prosperous, its institutions less dysfunctional, its politics less corrupt. All of these things are both possible and desirable, but they have little to do with Russia's role as an historical actor on the world stage, i.e. its status as a great power. That role is about the influence one exerts upon others. I am not talking only or even primarily about invading and conquering other nations (though that is certainly part of it, as it has been for all "great powers" past and present), but rather about all the myriad ways that large nations influence their environment, including benign ways such as in the form of cultural diffusion. The essential point is that being a great power is relational. You can't be a great power in a vacuum. Russia has been a powerful actor in world history for centuries now. This age was, in any case, probably drawing slowly, incrementally to a close, yet my contention here is that Russia's catastrophic invasion of Ukraine may well have greatly hastened that decline.

To put it in more concrete terms, consider what Russia's successful intervention in Syria did for its image as a great power. Some folks celebrated, some folks gnashed their teeth, but everyone had to sit up and take notice, and then take seriously what Moscow said after that. Same with the annexation of Crimea. Right or wrong, lauded or condemned, Russia did it and the rest of the world had to respond to that as to the waves from a pebble dropped into a pond. Russia's catastrophic failure in Ukraine will have precisely the opposite effect, and the second- and third-order consequences (increased NATO presence on Russia's border, decreased diplomatic and cross-cultural engagement, decreased commercial relations, increased reliance upon China) will shift Russia away from being an entity that exerts influence on others (a characteristic of a great power) to an entity that responds to the influences exerted upon it by others (a characteristic of a small or lesser power).

ZeEa5KPul said:

If anything good comes out of this war, it's that Russia will have to rebuild its military with Chinese technology no matter the outcome of the war.

Click to expand...

Well, that is in itself a form of diminution, for a nation that relies upon others for the tools to defend itself is, almost by definition, not a great power, because the tap can always be turned off, and therefore the choice to use (or refrain from using) force is not truly sovereign. The practical (as distinct from cultural/psychological) limiting factor on Russia's use of China's MIC has always been the point that, if Moscow doesn't research, design and build a given piece of hardware themselves, they won't have those research, design or manufacturing capacities going forward. Russia's scientists, engineers, technicians and factory workers aren't going to wait around under-employed and under-paid while everything flows in from China: they are going to change careers, retire, or emigrate, just as they did in the 90s.

Lethe said:

I am posting here rather than in the Ukraine War thread as I do not wish my post to be deleted as off-topic.



If Russia could not modernise and reform its forces during a 20 year period characterised by a stable population courtesy of high immigration, moderate economic growth, relatively open access to western technologies, and a government predisposed to think in terms of national security and embark on any number of military reforms, then what hope does it have in the years and decades ahead, which will be characterised by economic and technological isolation, a falling population, and anemic economic growth? The Gods of history are cruel and there is little reason to think that they will permit Moscow to re-roll the dice. This affair could well mark the beginning of a permanent and irrevocable diminution in Russia's status in the world. History is littered with empires and powers long extinguished or relegated to mere shadows of their former glory, and it is hubris to imagine that Russia is immune to such a fate. As observers our task is to assess things as objectively and dispassionately as we are able, and everything I see points in one direction: decline.

Click to expand...

Russian military modernisation failed because they did it for the wrong reasons and didn’t take it seriously. It failed not because of a lack of ability but because of a lack of will.

It was a peacetime modernisation done for prestige rather than due to the pressing need of a clear and present threat, one which was rife with vanity, corruption, nepotism and incompetence.

But after tasting the bitter fruits of its past mistakes so recently and freshly, it’s pretty unreasonable and arrogant to think Russia would be unable to learn from its past mistakes to do better. Not least because an end to the SMO is almost certainly not going to end the fighting and dying.

It’s one thing for officers to not take training seriously and embezzle funds earmarked for gear and training during peacetime when the likelihood of war seemed remote in the extreme. But it will be an entirely different prospect when they know there is a high likelihood that they will be ordered into actual combat with their troops in the near future.

This is the key and fundamental difference in the state of mind between a nation perpetually at peace and one that is at war or constantly facing the threat of war.

The Russian economy will do just fine because it is one based on the foundation of real world resources, resources the world’s factory right next door needs.

Russia’s economy will thrive because it provides China with key natural resources and because China sees a strong and independent Russia as a core national interest.

The west can shun and isolate Russia all it wants, but so long as China had Russia’s back, Russia will not fall.

Lethe said:

Russia's catastrophic failure in Ukraine will have precisely the opposite effect, and the second- and third-order consequences (increased NATO presence on Russia's border, decreased diplomatic and cross-cultural engagement, decreased commercial relations, increased reliance upon China) will shift Russia away from being an entity that exerts influence on others (a characteristic of a great power) to an entity that responds to the influences exerted upon it by others (a characteristic of a small or lesser power).

Click to expand...

It is Russian success in Ukraine that convince India to have 400% trade increase with Russia. There are other countries in Middleast/Africa/Latin America who are even more convinced. if there is West and China conflict that start impacting Middleast countries interests than that physical decoupling will happen but these things not very obvious. it is not theoretical analysis. All the recent conflict experience is inbuilt into weapons and strategy. Avoid occupying cities in beginning of conflict.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

During the special operation, Russia is actively using Kh-101 ultra-long-range cruise missiles. And the equipment of carrier aircraft now allows you to retarget the missile even after launch.
The fact is that the X-101 long-range air-launched cruise missile has been modified taking into account its combat use in Syria. Representatives of the design bureau of the Tactical Missiles Corporation observed the preparation of missiles for use and the launches themselves: both in Russia and in Syria. Based on the data obtained, the designers carried out fine-tuning of products taking into account the local climate, and corrected flight tasks. The range of the rocket is 5500 kilometers, the eight-meter projectile is invisible to radars and, depending on the situation, can change the flight altitude from 30 meters to 10 kilometers.

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Russian military modernisation failed because they did it for the wrong reasons and didn’t take it seriously. It failed not because of a lack of ability but because of a lack of will.

It was a peacetime modernisation done for prestige rather than due to the pressing need of a clear and present threat, one which was rife with vanity, corruption, nepotism and incompetence.

But after tasting the bitter fruits of its past mistakes so recently and freshly, it’s pretty unreasonable and arrogant to think Russia would be unable to learn from its past mistakes to do better. Not least because an end to the SMO is almost certainly not going to end the fighting and dying.

It’s one thing for officers to not take training seriously and embezzle funds earmarked for gear and training during peacetime when the likelihood of war seemed remote in the extreme. But it will be an entirely different prospect when they know there is a high likelihood that they will be ordered into actual combat with their troops in the near future.

This is the key and fundamental difference in the state of mind between a nation perpetually at peace and one that is at war or constantly facing the threat of war.

Click to expand...

Defeat can certainly be useful and there is a wide literature on this subject. But the kind of wholesale productive reinvention that you describe is just one possible outcome and not, in my view, the most likely one. No doubt there will be piecemeal reforms, and earnest attempts at more, but we should all be well acquainted with the idea that, when faced with difficult and uncomfortable truths, a great many people will prefer to embrace comforting and often destructive illusions rather than undertake the hard work of self-examination and self-renewal. I honestly see the collective Russian psyche as descending into a very dark place in these coming years and decades, because a narrative of failure and decline is a very difficult one to bear. Perhaps too difficult for any culture to bear.

plawolf said:

The Russian economy will do just fine because it is one based on the foundation of real world resources, resources the world’s factory right next door needs.

Russia’s economy will thrive because it provides China with key natural resources and because China sees a strong and independent Russia as a core national interest.

The west can shun and isolate Russia all it wants, but so long as China had Russia’s back, Russia will not fall.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that China can and will preserve Russian strength to the extent that Beijing believes it is useful to do so. As others have posted, Beijing's goal is to make use of Russia's enormous resource endowment to enhance China's national security, while preserving the country as a useful ally or, in minimal terms, denying Russia to The Enemy. But none of this is incompatible with a Russia that has been greatly diminished, isolated, and is all but inert on the world stage. Beijing does not need Russia to be a great power.

Anlsvrthng said:

`Few point.

1., so you say in the past 30 years Russia was bigger and more important element of the international politics than now? Could you explain it please?
2. What you mean by "military reform" ? The Current Russian army is not similar to the Soviet one, so we can say changed dramatically. Other hand the USA army is the same since 1941. And how could the reform looks like? Few USA guy drop in, and say clever things to the seatern subhumans, like in 1991 ? With simillar effect ?

Click to expand...

1. Over the past two decades, emerging from the chaos of the 1990s, Russia has slowly and gradually re-established its credentials as a great power. Russia went from being a nation that NATO could all but ignore in the Balkans in the late 1990s, to a nation that, when the US and its European and Middle Eastern allies said that Assad must go, was able to say "no, Assad will not go" and make that reality. With the catastrophic failure of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Putin has thrown all that progress away.

2. I mean that Russia has been "reforming" its armed services for the past twenty years. Major, highly publicised reforms. Yet the invasion of Ukraine has shone the cold light of day upon those reforms and revealed them as totally inadequate, if not actually a sham. Yet plawolf's contention is that, after "reforming" for decades, now we will see the real reforms.

Lethe said:

2. I mean that Russia has been "reforming" its armed services for the past twenty years. Major, highly publicised reforms. Yet the invasion of Ukraine has shone the cold light of day upon those reforms and revealed them as totally inadequate, if not actually a sham. Yet plawolf's contention is that, after "reforming" for decades, now we will see the real reforms.

Click to expand...

The problem lies in that the vitality of the Russian state has been continually sapped since the fall of the USSR, while during the time of the Union they could keep talent at home with the strength of the ideology alone and importing talent from member states, once that gave way to capitalism why would anyone but the most loyal Russian nationalist stay when there are higher paying jobs just across the border? We can see this in interviews/videos of industry in Russia that in stark contrast to the majority of engineers being under 35 in the case for China, Russian MIC is held up by leftover inertia from the Soviet days, how could weapons reform be successful if your skilled workforce is 2 steps from retirement home?

Of course this is not isolated to Russia, this is a problem that is also plaguing Europe but in similar vein to the USSR, they can afford immigration to fill up the gaps left by aging population while Russia will struggle to get people to move there.

tankphobia said:

The problem lies in that the vitality of the Russian state has been continually sapped since the fall of the USSR, while during the time of the Union they could keep talent at home with the strength of the ideology alone and importing talent from member states, once that gave way to capitalism why would anyone but the most loyal Russian nationalist stay when there are higher paying jobs just across the border? We can see this in interviews/videos of industry in Russia that in stark contrast to the majority of engineers being under 35 in the case for China, Russian MIC is held up by leftover inertia from the Soviet days, how could weapons reform be successful if your skilled workforce is 2 steps from retirement home?

Click to expand...

Such bollocks. There was a generation gap in the 1990s early 2000s when no one wanted to go into the Russian military industry complex because of poor pay and you only had old hands staying in, sometimes even without any pay whatsoever for months on end, but the situation is totally different today. For example this is the Chief Designer at Sukhoi, Mikhail Strelets.



He is roughly the same age as a Chief Designer in any other country. The people under him will typically be much younger. And if you look at the people working in the production facilities of any large ongoing projects, be it the Su-35 production line or the T-90 production line, you will see a lot of people in their 20s and 30s working there.

tankphobia said:

Of course this is not isolated to Russia, this is a problem that is also plaguing Europe but in similar vein to the USSR, they can afford immigration to fill up the gaps left by aging population while Russia will struggle to get people to move there.

Click to expand...

Russia has had a lot of migrants coming in from Central Asia ever since the USSR collapsed. In fact the population situation in Russia is not any worse than that in the rest of Europe. Which is not to say it is any good, but implosion of the native population is a problem in the West in general.

Russia also had large population growth with a baby boom after Putin got into power. And those people will be hitting the work force this decade.