Russia in the 21st Century [Superthread]

[Eye In The Sky]

I can't say I agree with the Russian threat part.  They appear to be building force/strength, practicing projecting it and while it may be insidious to some, I think it is something to be aware of, at least, if not concerned. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I can't say I agree with the Russian threat part.  They appear to be building force/strength, practicing projecting it and while it may be insidious to some, I think it is something to be aware of, at least, if not concerned.

I agree.  I'm not sure though that they have the capabilities to be the threat that many folks imagine.  Basically they seem, in my opinion, to be living off of Brezhnev era war stocks.  I don't believe they, or the Chinese have the capabilities to match the Americans.  Vladimir has a hammer.  Donald has a sledge.  The difference in the past was that Vladimir was prepared to use what he had.  Obama, when he held Donald's sledge, was not. 

One swallow does not make a spring but Donald now has given a reasonable Vladimir cause to second guess himself.  And the uncertainty that surrounds Donald plays into Donald's hands.

“Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.”

  Variously attributed and widely adopted. A bunch of people have been probing and pushing these past few years.

Putin, Xi, Kim, Abbas and Khameini now have to contend with the possibility of steel.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I can't say I agree with the Russian threat part.  They appear to be building force/strength, practicing projecting it and while it may be insidious to some, I think it is something to be aware of, at least, if not concerned.

The question would be what is the purpose of their building force? As per the link attached, Russia cannot hope to come anywhere near to matching the US alone militarily, let alone the US and the rest of NATO. In my opinion, there is no value and nothing to gain for Russia from attempting to fight a conventional war against NATO, which would mute any real rationale for doing so. The presence of thousands of nuclear warheads in both Russia and the US also provides both sides with a reasonable guarantee that they don't need to anticipate an existential threat to the sovereignty of the other (after all, sovereignty is the purview of the powerful, as seen through constant interventions of smaller states).

IMHO, Russian military "expansion" is more about maintaining relevance in the international community and ensuring that Russian economic and political interests can be at least somewhat represented. Attacking NATO in a conventional sense would not further any economic or political interest nor would it assist in influencing any potential change in the current US led liberal international world order. Russia is more likely to continue to cyber attack the west to discredit our moral leadership amongst non NATO nations. Conventional military action will only lead to a further polarization of the world against them and a military defeat. 

As such, I stand by my assertion that our "deterrence" of Russia is the same as the Bear Patrol on the Simpsons. It's deterring something that wasn't going to happen, so by default it will be a rousing success.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=United-States-of-America&country2=Russia&Submit=Compare+Countries

 

[Kirkhill]

But there are bears.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

But there are bears.

Yes, there are but none of them (china, Russia, Islamic state, etc) provide an existential threat to the west.

From a geopolitical standpoint, would we be better "peacekeeping" in Korea or other areas that have the actual potential for large force on force conflicts to occur or is the bear patrol more likely to anger a bear than to deter it? Remember, it's not that long ago that Russia was a friend of the US (Clinton and Yeltsin). The expansion of NATO, the 1998 world economic crisis and its impact on Russia, and the wests unwillingness to compromise or engage Russia in areas that it felt that it had geopolitical concerns (Serbia, Kosovo, Ukraine, etc) have largely brought the west and Russia to where they are now.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I'm not sure though that they have the capabilities to be the threat that many folks imagine ...

... there is no value and nothing to gain for Russia from attempting to fight a conventional war against NATO ... Russian military "expansion" is more about maintaining relevance in the international community and ensuring that Russian economic and political interests can be at least somewhat represented. Attacking NATO in a conventional sense would not further any economic or political interest nor would it assist in influencing any potential change in the current US led liberal international world order ...

And yet, they're able to keep Ukraine off balance enough to keep them out of NATO for the moment, were able to seize Crimea with minimal force and maximal political and "face" effect, continue to nudge ever so subtly around the Baltics to the point of getting NATO to throw some troops that way, and continue to be "in & out" of Syria enough to be considered a key player.

Russia is a threat, but I think only because it manages to figure out exactly how much pressure to apply with the right (but no more than required) amount of troops/power to get JUST enough of the job done to carry on.  I like how this article summarizes the main elements of Russia's approach:

... Reasonable Sufficiency: Inverting the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine

(...)

Force Multipliers: The Dead Cost Nothing

(...)

Firing in Burst Mode: Battlefield Dominance and Coercive Warfare

(...)

Always Be Withdrawing

(...)

Rethinking Use of Force: No Tool is Too Small for the Job

(...)

 

[GR66]

This is taking us off track for this thread but I've said in various threats that I don't think that Russia (or China) have any desire or intention of undertaking a war of aggression against the core nations of the West.  I don't believe they have the capability (or desire) to occupy Berlin, Paris, Oslo, Washington, Ottawa, Tokyo, or Canberra.  I don't think that it makes any sense to have Canadian defence policy focused on repelling Russian invasion forces. 

That doesn't mean however that Russia (or China) aren't military threats in those areas where our interests butt up against theirs.  Ukraine, the Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Taiwan, the South China Sea, etc. are all potential areas where we could see conflict with these nations.  Mistakes, miscalculations or just simple military failures however COULD make one of these countries feel so threatened that escalation could take place. 

We should definitely have forces that are capable of both deterring aggression and dealing with aggression against our collective interests, but at the same time I think we need politically to decide which hills we are willing to die on and which we are not.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This is taking us off track for this thread ...

Good point - brought the Russia-related material into the Russia thread.

Carry on ...

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

And yet, they're able to keep Ukraine off balance enough to keep them out of NATO for the moment, were able to seize Crimea with minimal force and maximal political and "face" effect, continue to nudge ever so subtly around the Baltics to the point of getting NATO to throw some troops that way, and continue to be "in & out" of Syria enough to be considered a key player.

Russia is a threat, but I think only because it manages to figure out exactly how much pressure to apply with the right (but no more than required) amount of troops/power to get JUST enough of the job done to carry on.  I like how this article summarizes the main elements of Russia's approach:

Yes, and these examples are in reality small potatoes with minimal geo-strategic impacts on the west. The Russian ability to influence any NATO country is effectively blocked by the mere presence of NATO, more realistically the US. The fact that Russia could only take the Crimea and was forced into a proxy war with the Ukraine over the eastern provinces should be a text book indication of why they're not to be feared. Their force projection abilities are only what the only remaining superpower, the US, will allow.

Syria is an interesting topic for Russia, and somewhere I see them using military force for strategic reasons. They are required to prop up Assad to keep a mediteranean naval base as well as because Assad has blocked natural gas pipelines from elsewhere in the mid east that were intended to provide Europe, who Russia ships 70% of its gas to, with cheaper gas and another option.

Aside from Russia and small portions of territory with no importance to the west Russia isn't a threat to NATO.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree they are not to be feared.  They are not likely to be driving into Berlin any time soon.  Unless the Germans invite them in.

Mushroom clouds at dawn are not the issue.  The bigger issues are financial, political, economic stability from keeping the system off balance.  And Vlad is doing a fine job of that.  His overall strategy seems to be to exploit, if not align, with every disruptive influence he can find.  A government says "black", he will lend support to anybody that says "white". If they make it to power he will switch to supporting those that say "black".

That makes him more dangerous, because he "operates" everywhere, everyday, and is hard to oppose, especially by conventional military means.  Rock, Paper, Scissors.... Tanks, Comms,... What cuts comms?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I agree they are not to be feared.  They are not likely to be driving into Berlin any time soon.  Unless the Germans invite them in.

Mushroom clouds at dawn are not the issue.  The bigger issues are financial, political, economic stability from keeping the system off balance.  And Vlad is doing a fine job of that.  His overall strategy seems to be to exploit, if not align, with every disruptive influence he can find.  A government says "black", he will lend support to anybody that says "white". If they make it to power he will switch to supporting those that say "black".

That makes him more dangerous, because he "operates" everywhere, everyday, and is hard to oppose, especially by conventional military means.  Rock, Paper, Scissors.... Tanks, Comms,... What cuts comms?

I agree that it is in the Russian interest to break the US led liberal international order, same as it is in the interest of China, Brazil, India, and other nations that would like to move up into a higher power position. However, I dont believe that NATO keeping a Bde Group in eastern Europe is going to have any impact on any of it. The solution to keeping Russia "down" is diplomatic and financial.

So, to the original point, I dont believe that Russia is any sort of military threat. Small campaigns into South Ossetia, Crimea, and the dombrass,have no impact on the west aside from giving people who want to see the Cold War come back ammunition to get back to the "good old days"

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The question would be what is the purpose of their building force? As per the link attached, Russia cannot hope to come anywhere near to matching the US alone militarily, let alone the US and the rest of NATO. In my opinion, there is no value and nothing to gain for Russia from attempting to fight a conventional war against NATO, which would mute any real rationale for doing so. The presence of thousands of nuclear warheads in both Russia and the US also provides both sides with a reasonable guarantee that they don't need to anticipate an existential threat to the sovereignty of the other (after all, sovereignty is the purview of the powerful, as seen through constant interventions of smaller states).

IMHO, Russian military "expansion" is more about maintaining relevance in the international community and ensuring that Russian economic and political interests can be at least somewhat represented. Attacking NATO in a conventional sense would not further any economic or political interest nor would it assist in influencing any potential change in the current US led liberal international world order. Russia is more likely to continue to cyber attack the west to discredit our moral leadership amongst non NATO nations. Conventional military action will only lead to a further polarization of the world against them and a military defeat. 

As such, I stand by my assertion that our "deterrence" of Russia is the same as the Bear Patrol on the Simpsons. It's deterring something that wasn't going to happen, so by default it will be a rousing success.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=United-States-of-America&country2=Russia&Submit=Compare+Countries

So Crimea, Donnas, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were all figments  of our imagination?

I disagree with you about as much as is possible.  Russia has proven to be completely untrustworthy and expansionist anywhere they identified a vulnerable target.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

There is no question, the United States is the undisputed military power of the world; however, Russia is powerful in its own right.  The power they are able to exert is different though.  Russia is a land power and has a sphere of influence that extends from its borders in to former Soviet states:

I would also argue that Russia has a second sphere, what I would call its sphere of interest.  This extends further in to the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.  The Middle East being of special importance due to Russia's reliance on energy exports which fuel its economy. 

Russia has no global ambition like the United States, its military is there to protect its sphere of influence and keep access to its spheres of interest open.  The Regular Army is 270,000 in strength with another 750,000 in Reserve.  That's not including VDV which is separate and sitting at around 50,000.  It's got a reasonably large Navy and large Air Force, more than enough to deny access of the Black Sea, Norwegian Sea, etc. 

I also wouldn't put much stock in Defence budgets, yes Russia only spends $60 billion dollars on Defence; however, given the State control of the Russian military industrial complex, secrecy, etc.  I would argue that this number is irrelevant.  How much would Canada have to spend to have an equivalent force in capability and size, $200-300 billion?  There dollars go a lot further than any NATO country's dollars go.

I've got a couple of friends that grew up in Russia and only moved to Canada in their teens.  School children in Russia all receive military training, my friend told me when he was in middle school all the children were taught how to strip and assemble AK47 rifles, conduct orienteering, etc.  This is all done under the veil of "adventure training/outdoor activities" but there is a higher intent here.

 

[GR66]

I'm with the camp that doesn't see Russian Army Groups dashing for the Fulda Gap any time soon, but there are three VERY big flies in the ointment - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

These three NATO countries do pose a serious issue for Russia.  Their entrance has pushed the NATO/Russian border 1300km closer to Moscow and right up against the border of Russia.  Not only has this move completely eliminated the presence of "buffer states" between Russian and the West, but has actually physically separated part of Russia (Kaliningrad) from the rest of the country.

Whatever our actual intentions, they can very easily be seen by Russians as a potential NATO dagger aimed at their homeland and a threat to their strategic (political, military and economic) position in the Baltic.

To complicate matters even more, these three states have a very muddled history with periods of independence separated by periods of domination by both Russia and other foreign powers.  All three countries have significant ethnic Russian minorities (25% in Estonia and Latvia, 6% in Lithuania but some major cities have Russian populations approaching 50% of the population).  What stand do we as NATO take if these minorities start agitating for greater rights?  Citizenship rights for some older Russian-speaking residents who were denied it at time of independence because they only spoke Russian?  Official Language rights?  Education in their native tongue?  Are these demands legitimate in an open, "Western" democracy?  Do they become illegitimate if they begin to receive moral or economic support from the Russian state?  Where does NATO stand if protests by Russian minorities becomes "heated" and the governments crack down?  Suppress the protests?  Maybe even use force? 

There are a lot of potentially difficult issues in those areas.  Personally, while I totally support the independence of the Baltic States and their freedom from Soviet domination, I think that bringing them into NATO was a very poor decision.  But that is the past and now we have to deal with that reality.  The risk now is that Russia might be sufficiently motivated to try to lessen the perceived threat that the Baltic States pose to Russia by destabilizing them from within rather than threatening them directly from without.  The problem for NATO is that they can't afford to "lose" any of the Baltic States without shaking the confidence of the rest of the members in NATOs commitment and capability.

 

[tomahawk6]

Russia is increasing its role in Central America including a new facility in Nicaragua to enhance Russia's version of GPS,but is more likely an intelligence gathering facility. Time for the US to counter this Russian activity possibly with more foreign aid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-soviet-union-fought-the-cold-war-in-nicaragua-now-putins-russia-is-back/2017/04/08/b43039b0-0d8b-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html?utm_term=.64953f5b75e8

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA — On the rim of a volcano with a clear view of the U.S. Embassy, landscapers are applying the final touches to a mysterious new Russian compound.
Behind the concrete walls and barbed wire, a visitor can see red-and-blue buildings, manicured lawns, antennas and globe-shaped devices. The Nicaraguan government says it’s simply a tracking site of the Russian version of a GPS satellite system. But is it also an intelligence base intended to surveil the Americans?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

"Russia has no global ambition like the United States, its military is there to protect its sphere of influence and keep access to its spheres of interest open."

I hear this comment regularly from those who attempt to defend the Russian for their indefensible actions.

Regardless of their perception of "their sphere of influence" it does not entitle them to invade and annex independent nations.  Much less to actively support tyrants like Bashir Assad as they strategically murder their own citizens.

It's a B.S. argument and if you lived in one of those "sphere of influence" border nations like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Georgia, etc., where you were constantly threatened for doing anything contrary to the Kremlin's wishes, you'd see this ridiculousness completely differently.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

"Russia has no global ambition like the United States, its military is there to protect its sphere of influence and keep access to its spheres of interest open."

I hear this comment regularly from those who attempt to defend the Russian for their indefensible actions.

Regardless of their perception of "their sphere of influence" it does not entitle them to invade and annex independent nations.  Much less to actively support tyrants like Bashir Assad as they strategically murder their own citizens.

It's a B.S. argument and if you lived in one of those "sphere of influence" border nations like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Georgia, etc., where you were constantly threatened for doing anything contrary to the Kremlin's wishes, you'd see this ridiculousness completely differently.

It's not BS it's reality.  The United States, France, UK, China have all invaded and meddled in the affairs of other countries in there spheres of influence, why should Russia receive harsher treatment in your eyes and not the others?

I'm sure you feel the same level of compassion for Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, etc.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

"Russia has no global ambition like the United States, its military is there to protect its sphere of influence and keep access to its spheres of interest open."

I hear this comment regularly from those who attempt to defend the Russian for their indefensible actions.

Regardless of their perception of "their sphere of influence" it does not entitle them to invade and annex independent nations.  Much less to actively support tyrants like Bashir Assad as they strategically murder their own citizens.

It's a B.S. argument and if you lived in one of those "sphere of influence" border nations like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Georgia, etc., where you were constantly threatened for doing anything contrary to the Kremlin's wishes, you'd see this ridiculousness completely differently.

I dont defend Russia, I just dont believe that they're any threat. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are all parts of NATO, so there is no chance, in my opinion, that Russia would invade them directly since they would be defeated in due fashion. So, spending money to "deter" the Russians from something they aren't going to do is more of a slight of hand in my opinion.

The only strategic option that Russia has is to break the US led liberal international order which cannot be done militarily.

 

[a_majoor]

The problem is much more difficult.

Nations like the Baltic Republics are seen by Russia as in Russia's "sphere of influence", as well as buffer states to absorb invading armies. From Russia's perspective, it is unforgivable for nations in the "near abroad" to decisively reject Russian influence and literally turn their backs on Russia to face West and seek the opportunities available in the EU and North America.

Since Russia has few natural barriers against invasion from either the East or West, losing the former buffer states is scary. In addition they are now a nation with a GDP about the size of Spain sandwiched between the EU (with a population and GDP similar to the United States) and China (the second largest economy in the world and a population of over a billion), which is very much at odds with Vladimir Putin's 2008 speech where he declared Russia is indeed a Great Power and should be treated as such, as well as deep seated Russian Mythology of Moscow being the "Third Rome" and Russia being destined to unite and rule over the civilizations of the West and East.

Putin and the Russians are very opportunistic and using every opportunity to sow confusion and attempt to turn Western nations against each other in order to keep their cards in play as long as possible, but the mismatch of resources will eventually tell so long as the West or China have resolute leadership. Even the Gulf States could collapse the oil market and upend the Russian position, which is not a good place to be in.

Expect Putin to continue to try to exploit the seams for as long as possible, and jump at every opportunity to sow confusion and discord in his wake.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The problem is much more difficult.

Nations like the Baltic Republics are seen by Russia as in Russia's "sphere of influence", as well as buffer states to absorb invading armies. From Russia's perspective, it is unforgivable for nations in the "near abroad" to decisively reject Russian influence and literally turn their backs on Russia to face West and seek the opportunities available in the EU and North America.

Since Russia has few natural barriers against invasion from either the East or West, losing the former buffer states is scary. In addition they are now a nation with a GDP about the size of Spain sandwiched between the EU (with a population and GDP similar to the United States) and China (the second largest economy in the world and a population of over a billion), which is very much at odds with Vladimir Putin's 2008 speech where he declared Russia is indeed a Great Power and should be treated as such, as well as deep seated Russian Mythology of Moscow being the "Third Rome" and Russia being destined to unite and rule over the civilizations of the West and East.

Putin and the Russians are very opportunistic and using every opportunity to sow confusion and attempt to turn Western nations against each other in order to keep their cards in play as long as possible, but the mismatch of resources will eventually tell so long as the West or China have resolute leadership. Even the Gulf States could collapse the oil market and upend the Russian position, which is not a good place to be in.

Expect Putin to continue to try to exploit the seams for as long as possible, and jump at every opportunity to sow confusion and discord in his wake.

Not to mention these States along with Moldova, Ukraine, etc... All contain substantial Russian populations.  I see no difference with what Russia is doing to what the French do in Africa, the Americans do in Latin America or the Chinese do in Southeast Asia.