Why are the Russians being more militarily expansive? Who exactly do they fear?

[Gukumatz]

FWIW, Norwegian with plenty of friends in Moscow weighing in.

Russia, while effectively speaking disarmed in a land-war sense by the fall of the Soviet Union, never stopped being a military presence on account of the sheer weight in numbers. Very few nations in the world can field the sheer numbers of troops, supply vehicles and so forth that would be necessary to invade Russia to any efficient degree. And, as such, even trying would be punishment enough for most singular caucasus states or NATO states.

However, Russia has in the last while - effectively since Putin claimed power - enjoyed an economical upturn that has made rebuilding a lot of infrastructure viable. This includes, to some degree, the military.

Putin’s hardline stance on what was portrayed as a response to increasing terrorist attacks by Chechnyan-based seperatists was one of the reasons he was able to stay in power in the first critical year of his presidency. (5 presidents had served in the 18 months before he came to power) Some claim “provocative” actions (i.e. terrorist bombings and such) carried out on Russian soil were Russian false-flag operations comparable to the US-planned “Operation Northwood,” but most of the actions have been claimed responsibility for by the IIPB. In other words, Putin’s actions were most likely the result of political expediency, at least to begin with. The Russian people to a large degree wanted someone who could “deal with” the “Chechnyan problem.” They got it, and by his 72% re-election score, it seems like they liked it.

(On another note, the internal term for the current Russian form of government is “Sovereign Democracy.” Which, obviously, implies a definite aggression against being “proofed” by outsiders, who are largely viewed as nosy and pretentious.)

Putin’s spoken intent for the world is that he is for a “multipolar” world and the strengthening of International Law. (Considering the fact that his doctorate is in International Law, IIRC.) He has several times said he regrets the US’ use of force in international affairs, as it invalidates the legitimacy of international laws. (And yes, I am sure he is not unaware of the irony.)

As for who Russia may be afraid of, I’d say China concerns him a great deal more than the US. But having a strong, revitalized military can only benefit him and using the refurbishment of the armed forces has been a multi-tiered beneficial plan for him since it has also kick-started a fair amount of dormant industry.

The Norwegian position on Russia is that he’s a benevolent, but harsh, tyrant. We’ve had our fair share of scares - unannounced Navy ships in eyeball range from our oil rigs in the north sea, for instance - but that’s to be expected. Under the 8 years of his presidency, the GDP was increased sixfold. Average monthly wages climbed from $80 to $640, a real term increase of 150% after inflation. The middle class has been boosted from 8 million in 1999, to 55 million in 2008. The amount of people living under the poverty line has been halved, from 30% to 14%. And so on.

Sure, a lot of his powerful friends have coat-tailed on his rise to power, but that’s politics for you - and hardly isolated to Russia at any rate. He’s brutal, suppressing and dominative, but there’s a lot of understanding for that in Norway - a lot of us still carry that nutbag Yeltsin fresh in mind.

[Rune]

@Camus

These two statements seem contradictory.

Russia, like the USA and any other nation has many different interests and many different interest groups that want different often mutually contradictory things.

@Camus

Does Russia have grand ambitions to return to a bi-polar or multi-polar world or not?

I think the Russian leadership at the moment believes that is where we are headed weather we want or not.

@Camus

If Russia has no plans to become a global superpower, why did they resume fighter/bomber probes of UK and American airspace, which were discontinued after the fall of the Soviet Union?

I think the reason for those flights were mostly for the home audience. Didn’t they stop again? With the armed nuclear flights I mean.

@Camus

Why conduct joint sea and air exercises with Venezuela?

Why not? But there are probably a number of reasons. The Russia navy needs exercises just as any other navy and NATO has decided to stop planned naval exercises with Russia. When you have few friends you cannot afford to be picky. And then there is the money they hope to get with trade with Venezuela. And they probably also savour sticking it to the USA. Do you feel this is a larger provocation to the USA, than US warships sailing in The Black Sea is to Russia? - even trying (although not with much success, due to local resistance) to dock at the old Russian port Sevastopol – now Ukraine.

@Camus

Why seek to make the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an eastern NATO?

I’m not sure that is what they are trying. But it would be quite natural if they did. Putin actually started out quite pro-Western, but has afterwards felt he has been repeatedly ignored and humiliated by Western nations and have consequentially been turning more eastwards. He started out describing Russia as a European nation. Now the thinking is more that Russia is a distinct Euro-Asian culture different from the rest of Europe. And why shouldn’t Russia seek allies where they can find them? Apparently the West wants nothing to do with them. Then they are forced to look elsewhere. It could have been very different, but we have only ourselves to blame for that.

@Lemur866

You apparently don’t know the first thing about Chechnya then.

More than you apparently.

@Lemur866

You do know that the Russians fucking FLATTENED Grozny, right? That after the second Chechen war something like 80% of the economy of Chechnya was destroyed? And you know that the independence movement in Chechnya changed from a majority movement to a minority movement by the simple expedient of exterminating the independence movement?

And how does this contradict what I wrote. However it happened it appears - although it is hard to know for certain - that today there is not widespread support for independence inside Chechnya.

@Lemur866

Apparently as long as the United States isn’t involved you aren’t interested. Typical.

Yes, because I have a long history of being rabid anti-Americanism.

@Tristan

So, you have no interest in actually discussing the Russian side of thing that I have mentioned, and will just be waving the “USA=Bad!” flag. Good to know.

You and Lemur both. So is this a new version of the Why-Do-You-Hate-America meme?

@Tristan

But if, as you claim, they are hoping to float new aircraft carriers, that would point to a projection of power outside of their borders, which is one of the defining characteristics of a military superpower.

France, Britain, India, China all have, or have planned, aircraft carriers. If a military power comparable to France or Britain is what you mean by a military superpowers, then sure. What I say is that I think yes they want the military power needed to be taken serious and not trampled on without regard like they feel have been many times since the last decade, but I don’t think there are any serious plans to set up military bases in Africa or South America or challenge the USA in such places removed from the immediate Russian neighbourhood.

And it is a bit hard to take at face value that Russia should be militarily expansive when their military budget is only of mediocre size compared to a number of other European countries of vastly smaller size and less than 1/15 of the USA’s. If Russia is militarily expansive how would you describe the USA? Hyper militarily expansive or perhaps just military extroverted?

[JRDelirious]

@Henrichek

What about Germany and Turkey? In each of those countries, as well as other european countries, the US deploys tens of nuclear weapons. Ok, they don’t directly border Russia, but it’s close enough. Cuba doesn’t border the USA either, which is pretty irrelevant.

Well, he WAS still wrong to say it was “even closer than Cuba”, but that was Laudanum’s mistake, not yours;).
And yes, these are the remainder (after substantial reduction by BOTH sides) of the theatre Tactical Nukes that have been there in one form or another for decades. They kept a number of theirs, we kept a number of ours (and no longer on IRBMs any more, so no “big missiles”), and both sides signed on it. Laudanum’s phrasing: *“you are putting big, nuclear misiles in countries close to them”, *present tense active participle, sounded like something new or additional was being deployed now, that created new concerns – that’s probably what Tristan and myself found questionable about the statement and why we didn’t think of the rump TacNuke force right out of hand.

In any case, if THAT’s what is being referred to, then you might as well count the home-based nuclear arsenals of the UK and France, as well as China. Again, factors that have been there for a lifetime – it’s not so much a matter of responding to a threat as it is of rebuilding back to the point where they feel they are an equal player.

[Henrichek]

@JRDelirious

Well, he WAS still wrong to say it was “even closer than Cuba”, but that was Laudanum’s mistake, not yours;).
And yes, these are the remainder (after substantial reduction by BOTH sides) of the theatre Tactical Nukes that have been there in one form or another for decades. They kept a number of theirs, we kept a number of ours (and no longer on IRBMs any more, so no “big missiles”), and both sides signed on it. Laudanum’s phrasing: *“you are putting big, nuclear misiles in countries close to them”, *present tense active participle, sounded like something new or additional was being deployed now, that created new concerns – that’s probably what Tristan and myself found questionable about the statement and why we didn’t think of the rump TacNuke force right out of hand.

In any case, if THAT’s what is being referred to, then you might as well count the home-based nuclear arsenals of the UK and France, as well as China. Again, factors that have been there for a lifetime – it’s not so much a matter of responding to a threat as it is of rebuilding back to the point where they feel they are an equal player.

Agreed. However, I don’t think their build-up warrants the concern people raise about it. I think it’s quite natural that they modernize and produce some of their more modern equipment which insofar has seen very limited deployment. They still have T-55 deployed in some places, and in many other areas use very outdated equipment. As previously mentioned in the thread, their spending levels are nothing out of the ordinary.

I think people are just paranoid and see any move of Russia as belligerent and evil. Take the navy exercises with Venezuela as an example. Even the US government has said that these are no reason for concern, but still people see it as something scary. I’d congratulate the Russian sailors for getting to see some new shores and maybe getting to see some hot Venezuelan girls ;). It’s not really a reason for alarm. Joint exercises are commonplace between a great deal of nations.

[Henrichek]

@Tristan

Cite? We are attempting to put missile defenses in place, but AFAIK that does not translate to nuclear missles.

While true, defensive systems are worse from a MAD standpoint.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rune

I think the Russian leadership at the moment believes that is where we are headed weather we want or not.

The U.S. National Intelligence Council believes the same thing.

[Lumpy]

Sorry I can’t give a cite (it was in some magazine I read on the stand), but there was a political cartoon that summed it up perfectly. Two figures: one representing Poland is putting on a bullet-proof vest labled “missile defense”. The other figure representing Russia is loaded with machineguns, shoulder launched rockets, grenades, etc. and is screaming “How DARE you threaten me!”

[Henrichek]

@Lumpy

Sorry I can’t give a cite (it was in some magazine I read on the stand), but there was a political cartoon that summed it up perfectly. Two figures: one representing Poland is putting on a bullet-proof vest labled “missile defense”. The other figure representing Russia is loaded with machineguns, shoulder launched rockets, grenades, etc. and is screaming “How DARE you threaten me!”

I think you missed one side of the cartoon, where the US is standing loaded with many times more guns and using Poland as a human shield ;).

[Camus]

@Henrichek

Strategic bomber pilots need training too, and the best way to do that is to fly on such missions. I think they haven’t really violated UK or American airspace either. I believe these guys got seriously few flight hours since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was due to financial reasons and not any change in stance.

I’m not sure you can call flights by fighters/bombers that seem to aim at the heart of foreign airspace and then peel away at the last second or have to be escorted away by foreign fighters as “training exercises.” A more accurate description would be aerial saber-rattling or probing defenses and response times. American and NATO flights did this routinely to the Soviets during the Cold War, but as far as I’m aware, we stopped doing this with Russia.

This is a silly comment. Why do any countries conduct military exercises together? That’s very very common.

Joint military exercises are somewhat common, but the point is WHICH countries are participating in such exercises. While the US has provided training and military aid to Georgia and some training to Ukraine, to date I don’t believe that US forces have held joint military exercises or war games with either country. That’s partly because doing so would be interpreted as overly provocative and belligerent. Venezuela isn’t considered anywhere near in America’s backyard as Ukraine and Georgia are to Russia, but the timing and locale of Russia’s exercises are hardly coincidence.

[Henrichek]

@Camus

I’m not sure you can call flights by fighters/bombers that seem to aim at the heart of foreign airspace and then peel away at the last second or have to be escorted away by foreign fighters as “training exercises.” A more accurate description would be aerial saber-rattling or probing defenses and response times. American and NATO flights did this routinely to the Soviets during the Cold War, but as far as I’m aware, we stopped doing this with Russia.

I don’t have any information about whether or not USA still conducts such flights, and Googling it seems slightly difficult since news about Russian flights swamp the search results. I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept doing them after the collapse of SU. Somebody help finding cites? As you mentioned though, this used to be routine, and only now do their finances allow for them to resume these exercises.

Joint military exercises are somewhat common, but the point is WHICH countries are participating in such exercises. While the US has provided training and military aid to Georgia and some training to Ukraine, to date I don’t believe that US forces have held joint military exercises or war games with either country. That’s partly because doing so would be interpreted as overly provocative and belligerent. Venezuela isn’t considered anywhere near in America’s backyard as Ukraine and Georgia are to Russia, but the timing and locale of Russia’s exercises are hardly coincidence.

What is so provocative about the timing? I believe these exercises were scheduled before any recent events. They are opportunities for their servicemen to learn from each other and gain a broader experience. I think the world would see Russia as belligerent even if they sold all their tanks and bombers, and instead bought flowers and started handing them out to the world.

[Tristan]

@Henrichek

While true, defensive systems are worse from a MAD standpoint.

But aren’t the missle defenses being proposed for Poland more for short range or possibly medium range missles?

To date, there is still no reliable defense against ICBM’s, which the Russians in theory have plenty of. Thus MAD is insured.

And, as has been stated, Poland suffered under Soviet hegemoney for quite some time. Does the leadership in Moscow now not understand why the Polish government would be reluctant to take orders from them?

[BrainGlutton]

@Tristan

But aren’t the missle defenses being proposed for Poland more for short range or possibly medium range missles?

To date, there is still no reliable defense against ICBM’s, which the Russians in theory have plenty of. Thus MAD is insured.

So, what’s the point of having missiles in Poland?

[tagos]

@BrainGlutton

So, what’s the point of having missiles in Poland?

To pointlessly rattle the bear’s cage so that the Military Industrial Complex can go back to the ‘scary Russians’ thing once the ‘scary muslims’ angle has been worked to death.

China has too firm a grip on the US’s financial balls to be prodded in that way.

[Rune]

Incidentally:

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

…

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: “It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world’s financial regulator.”

Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.

• not my opinion naturally. Way to conspiracy orientated. But Russian views are often that. And perhaps it shows something of how the Russian political ruling class thinks the future will evolve.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rune

Incidentally:
Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.

• not my opinion naturally. Way to conspiracy orientated. But Russian views are often that. And perhaps it shows something of how the Russian political ruling class thinks the future will evolve.

The Floridian Empire will be kind and benevolent to all its loyal and beloved vassal states.

Well, except for Georgia, of course.

[Tristan]

@BrainGlutton

So, what’s the point of having missiles in Poland?

Maybe at the request of Poland? Or to help defend Europe against Medium range missles from someone such as, for example, Iran?

To be honest, I don’t really know.

But even if they are a defensive measure against Russian expansion by force, since Poland is not part of Russia, why should they get to dictate terms?

Now, if it were surface-to-surface missles, an offensive weapon, that I could see getting concerned about. We wouldn’t let Russia put SSBM’s in Cuba, for example, if we could figure out how to stop them. And we would protest, loudly, in the world media.

But if Russia wanted to pull short or medium range defenses in Mexico, I would tell the Gov’t of the US that it’s between Russia and Mexico.

[Rune]

@Tristan

But if Russia wanted to pull short or medium range defenses in Mexico, I would tell the Gov’t of the US that it’s between Russia and Mexico.

The USA & Israel nearly had a fit on the rumour (which Russia denied) that Russia had sold purely defensive S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran and Syria.

[Henrichek]

@Tristan

But aren’t the missle defenses being proposed for Poland more for short range or possibly medium range missles?

No, the missiles planned to be deployed in Poland are for exoatmospheric mid-course interception of ICBM’s.

To date, there is still no reliable defense against ICBM’s, which the Russians in theory have plenty of. Thus MAD is insured.

Yes, but the US seems hell bent on changing this balance. Surely the interceptors will be improved and deployed more widely. Secondly, most Soviet built ICBM’s are reaching the end of their service life, and they are not being replaced nearly quickly enough to keep the numbers up. Ten interceptors won’t be enough of course, but it’s a start.

[Tristan]

@Rune

The USA & Israel nearly had a fit on the rumour (which Russia denied) that Russia had sold purely defensive S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran and Syria.

I see.

Did the Russians sell these systems to the Iranians and Syrians anyway?

[mswas]

@Henrichek

That is incorrect. The Russian birth rate is similar to many European nations, while the death rate is higher. They have recognized their demographics problem, and Putin has taken measures to reverse it. The population decrease has slowed down several years in a row, and is expected to turn into an increase at about 2020.

Right, Russia is probably profited by the higher death rate. Europe is going to have a problem when they are imbalanced toward old people. Russia won’t have to deal with it in the same time. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cause of fear in Russia.