The Russian Military: Declining or Better?

[MikeF]

What does the Prime Minister, Mr Putin, say?

That is the key question as most reports I've seen and bothered to read on Russia think that Mr Putin wants to be president again.

davidbfpo

Very true. I'm sure many will be pessimistic by the President's remarks. We'll have to wait and see.

v/r

Mike

[carl]

Well he says the right things. But I wonder if he actually means it, seeing as how he is an integral part of a government that does a pretty good mafia imitation. Nothing will matter anyway unless they can defuse their demographic time bomb.

[kaur]

Behind the golden doors.

Mr Medvedev’s article evoked memories of Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika speeches in the 1980s; he said this week that what went wrong with Mr Gorbachev was that he began but failed to complete his reforms. Mr Medvedev, however, has not ever started. But cynics also saw an echo of Mr Putin’s first state-of-the-nation address as president in July 2000. Mr Putin talked then of a shrinking population, a backward economy and the importance of freedom of speech and human rights.

So it is not surprising that many Russians were unimpressed. As one website visitor commented: “Mr President, your mostly correct words have nothing in common with what is happening in the country of which you are the leader. I don’t believe you. Do something first, something that would illustrate your readiness to modernise the country and move it forward. Fire the government or let Khodorkovsky out. At least do something!”

The problem, argues Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, is that the economy cannot become dynamic and progressive if the political system is not fair and free. But Mr Medvedev’s liberalism is virtual not real. In 18 months of his presidency, the Russian media has not become any freer. Political opponents have not gained access to television. The number of murders and attacks on human-rights activists has gone up. And the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once one of the country’s wealthiest oligarchs, has turned into a showpiece of political repression.

As Mr Medvedev’s letter to Mr Yushchenko shows, he fits in with the Kremlin’s policy of confrontation and the search for enemies, particularly at times of crisis. The tension at the top of the government does not seem to make Russia any friendlier towards the West. Although his article said that Russian foreign policy should be defined by the goal of modernisation, Mr Medvedev shook hands with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez on an arms deal (see article). “We will supply Venezuela with the types of arms it asks for, acting in compliance with our international obligations. We will certainly deliver tanks too, why not? We have good tanks.”

On September 14th, at a conference on global security in Yaroslavl, Mr Medvedev again lambasted America for causing the global crisis. He also called for a new European security architecture that would give Russia greater influence, particularly in the former Soviet space.

http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=14460297

The Vladimir and Dmirty show.

TO SEE Russia’s two leaders in quick succession is instructive. The more so if the issue is which should run for president in 2012, when Dmitry Medvedev’s current term expires. Vladimir Putin, tanned and muscular, positively twinkled as he told the Valdai club of foreign academics and commentators over lunch on September 11th that “we will reach an agreement. We understand each other. We are people of one blood, with the same political views…We will look at economic and political factors, and at the position of the United Russia party, which I head, and then decide.”

http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=14460354

[Fuchs]

http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2010/...eorganization/

(...)
The goal of all these transformations is to reduce the number of layers of command from sixteen to three, hopefully thereby increasing the speed and accuracy of military decision-making. The idea is that with this new simplified command system and improvements in communication equipment, “the chief of the general staff will be able to call any company or platoon commander” and vice-versa. (...)

Ouch. 16 to 3 is incredible (and I doubt that it's accurate), but a direct comm link from Moscow to a platoon at the Chinese border isn't exactly an improvement in my opinion.

[bourbon]

Russian Military Reform Goal #37: No more beating young conscripts to death and then selling their organs on the Chinese Black Market


Is the Russian Army Bullying Its Soldiers to Death?, by Carl Schreck. Time Magazine, June 21, 2010

Russians have become so familiar with stories of military suicides that Suslov's death might have warranted little more than a brief mention in the press had it not been for the disturbing video posted on YouTube on June 2 showing his body in an open casket. In the video, Suslov's shirt is opened to reveal a line of enormous stitches running from his neck to his abdomen, evoking images of the leather laces on an antique basketball. His mother hovers over his body while the mother of a solider who allegedly committed suicide in 2003 gives a harrowing narration of the apparent injuries to Suslov's body. The woman, Alma Bukharbayeva, claims her son Marat was murdered during his mandatory service in Bikin and that his organs were removed and sold on the black market in China. The crude stitches and various bruises and abrasions on Suslov's body, she alleges in the video, indicate his organs may also have been removed to be sold for transplant surgeries.

[SWJ Blog]

This Week at War: A Leaner, Cleaner Russian Army

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Ray]

Russia to revive army bases in three oceans

The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. So far, this is not about plans for a military presence, but rather the restoration of the crew resources. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.

The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out,"
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/poli...a_army_base-0/

A rather intriguing report from the Pravda.

Anyone has an idea what's up?

There is a mention of an OAK missile being deployed in Cuba.

Any idea what it is?

[Entropy]

The Russians have discussed these "bases" before. This is really about rights to harbor, resupply and provide crew rest for Russian ships and so the Russians aren't really opening military "bases." This will allow Russian ships to deploy for longer periods and operate farther from their home ports.

As far as the missile goes, I have no idea. My Russian is very rusty, but the translation seems correct based on the Russian version of the article.

The newest Russian nuclear ballistic missile system is the Topol which means "Poplar" in Russian. Maybe Pravda got their trees mixed up. But even that doesn't make any sense - the Topol is an ICBM so there's no point in putting them in Cuba. And then there are the massive geopolitical ramifications of such a deployment.

No one else seems to have reported this missile deployment either. So, all in all, I think it's very likely that this is another case of Pravda not living up to its name....

[Bob's World]

We need to grow used to the idea that in a more balanced world there will be many nations working to secure the interests they see as vital to them.

Some will invite many larger nations to trade with them and to provide some aspect of their mutual security. For example, I can see where Vietnam would see nothing incongruous about having ships from US, Russian, Chinese and Indian navies all in port in Cam Ranh at the same time. Best to keep ones options open.

Some will go out into the world and ensure they have access to resources, markets and reliable nodes to sustain their security forces. A US sharing the benefits of a global market should recognize the benfits of sharing security duties for the access to those markets as well.

The US will remain the biggest dog in the pack for years to come, but our days of playing the lone wolf (or leader of a pack of lesser dogs subservient to our will and interests as we define them) are about over.

[carl]

What Russian professes they want to do and what they can do are two different things. They don't have much and unless they fix their demographic problem and become something other than a mafia state, they will have less in the future.

[slapout9]

Until Directed Energy Weapons become truly viable it is all about guided missiles. And regardless of what the long term outlook for Russia is, Putin will be a formidable adversary in the coming years for America. The more we push for a so called Missile Defense for Europe the more you will see a Russian Missile push back. Naval ports and Missiles....that is something that Russia has a long history with and they are good at it.

[davidbfpo]

Missed by many I suspect, so hat tip to Australia's Lowy Institute e-briefing:

The failure two weeks ago of GLONASS was frankly an unprecedented total disruption of a fully operational satellite constellation. At just past midnight Russian time (GMT + 4) on 2 April, every GLONASS space vehicle began broadcasting corrupt data. This rendered the system completely unusable to all receivers worldwide, and the system remained that way for about eleven hours.

The slim technical details:http://gpsworld.com/glonass-gone-then-back/

The US report and wondering about reliance on non-Russian GPS:http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...-backup-to-gps

Which has an interesting Crimea-related passage:

It should be no surprise that those unbadged Russian troops swarming into Crimea last month brought with them trucks with very recognizable GPS jammers. The new R-330 Zhitel system appears to have enough power to jam even military-grade receivers over a wide area, and a dispersed deployment of them could overwhelm even the most sophisticated electronically-steered antennas.

I note this failure was on the 2nd April 2014, after April Fool's Day.

[carl]

The one article doubts the system was hacked. Right, like you said, the day after April Fools.

But as far as our reliance GPS goes I asked a battle captain once what the drill would be if GPS went down. He got a thoughtful look on his face and said more or less, he had no idea at all.

[Stan]

Imagine yourself in Zaire with a cell phone that worked in only three major cities (if you called (pardon the pun) ahead to get a connection), and you had a compass and map from the 1960s.

Half of the high end Garmins with purportedly unlimited free updates can't get you around this tiny little country.

We've lost our very basic military training where the drill sergeant snapped the eraser off the pencil, gave it back and told you, "you were not yet trained to use that end of the pencil"

Carl,
Back to VFR

[TheCurmudgeon]

Stan, the problem would not be land navigation. It would be GPS guided "smart" munitions or drones that rely on GPS for course corrections for weather conditions.

[Stan]

Stan, the problem would not be land navigation. It would be GPS guided "smart" munitions or drones that rely on GPS for course corrections for weather conditions.

Jeez, Stan... That begs the question

We are guiding our million dollar sierra with Russian satellites

Hence the term "Smart" as in street wise from DC or Intelligent from God knows where ?

We still have SR teams that lase the targets behind enemy lines for far less cash !

EDIT:

If I look back on the blunders of Russian smart bombs in Georgia with most of the ordnance landing miles from what we concluded were their intended targets, I would have to conclude that a Russian satellite blackout might be a good thing.

My point however is the same. I can still call in Artillery using a map, can still call in my location using a map, and, the map batteries never die when I need them the most. Worst case scenario, I need to sharpen a pencil.

[Fuchs]

Half of the high end Garmins with purportedly unlimited free updates can't get you around this tiny little country.

We've lost our very basic military training where the drill sergeant snapped the eraser off the pencil, gave it back and told you, "you were not yet trained to use that end of the pencil"

U.S. Army land navigation skills with compass and map were already a running gag in (parts of) the Luftwaffe (!!!) back in the 90's.

It's one of those skills which make it really easy to embarrass people in general.


(Disclaimer: I'm fine with maps, yet horrible without.)

[Stan]

Fuchs,
Good point

However, when put to the test in the middle of the Sub-Sahara with only lunch and a cold beer in the back of the truck, you better get it right !

We did, and several times over.

It was in fact 1994 and both of us are still alive.

Land navigation skills are not for the common soldier and few pass a 16 mile road march at White Sands.

But then, few from the Luftwaffe make it past the first day at Bragg, nor do most other soldiers, regardless of nationality.

Pilots are not land navigators, unless following rivers and mountains qualify as navigating

U.S. Army land navigation skills with compass and map were already a running gag in (parts of) the Luftwaffe (!!!) back in the 90's.

It's one of those skills which make it really easy to embarrass people in general.


(Disclaimer: I'm fine with maps, yet horrible without.)

[novelist]

I think you have to look at the former Red Army in the context of its organization prior to 1989. A Motor Rifle Regiment carried 5 battalions: There were two BTR equipped light motor rifle battalions, a BMP equipped heavy motor rifle battalion, a T-54/55 equipped tank battalion, and a Sp. 122mm howitzer battalion. In all, the regiment carried 27 companies/batteries, 70% of which were fire capable. The Motor Rifle Division carried 5 regiments: two light motor rifle regiments, (assault forces) a heavy motor rifle regiment, (exploitation force), a T-62/64 equipped tank regiment, (exploitation force) and an Sp. 152mm howitzer regiment. The division carried 58 battalions to include a T-72 equipped independent tank battalion. The motor rifle battalion of the exploitation forces carried a Battalion HQ, three motor rifle squads for HQ security, three (3) motor rifle companies, an 82mm mortar battery, and a technical services company comprised of a repair platoon, a medical platoon, a transportation platoon, and a communications platoon. The assault force had the immediate task of breaching the enemy line. The battalion making the most progress received regimental arty support. A battalion not making good progress was left to its own devices. NCO' s were not allowed to carry maps, and could not call for arty or air support. If the platoon leader was killed in action, the senior NCO could not take command of the platoon. Having said all of this, I think you have to look at the current organizational structure of a motor rifle regiment and its current doctrinal TTP. You'd also have to look at leadership and whether or not platoon leaders, company commanders, etc. are now permitted to exercise initiative. This seems the only logical way to determine whether or not the Russian army of today is Declining or Better. The Russian army now has about 90 active divisions.

[OUTLAW 09]

More Jane's information on the new Russian MBT.

Jane's @IHS4DefRiskSec in-deth look at Russia's new fighting machines http://www.janes.com/article/51469/r...our-revolution … http://www.janes.com/images/assets/4...9/p1633366.jpg …