Russian Unconventional Strategy

[kaur]

Sorry for link in Russian, but 1 pic tells more than 1000 words One Russian officer wrote short overview about exercise " Steadfast Jazz 2013". First pic is how Russians think about NATO attack in European theatre of war. If you perceive situation this way, look at the map, then how you think about Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?

http://factmil.com/publ/strana/alban...013/66-1-0-335

[OUTLAW 09]

kaur---this slide really goes to the heart of the Russian argument that they need "spheres of influence" and a "border buffer zone" with NATO thus the indirect suggestion of taking back the Crimea, Ukraine and the Baltics to provide for that buffer.

It also justifies to their population the increased defense spending and the need to be vigilant against the spread of the Color/Spring revolts as NATO/US will use those to destabilize Russia---see how the rhetoric now fits and makes sense to an average Russian?

http://factmil.com/_pu/3/12000853.jpg

[OUTLAW 09]

Bill---when I talk about the ability of the Russian foreign policy to interact with criminal elements to reach a stated end state--this is something we do not have in our foreign policy decisions.

This is an example of just how strong the Russian mafia is and thus a strong actor that can be injected into a declared end state ie say the Ukraine.

"When you’re planning to rob the Russian cyber mob, you’d better make sure that you have the element of surprise, that you can make a clean getaway, and that you understand how your target is going to respond. Today’s column features an interview with two security experts who helped plan and execute last week’s global, collaborative effort to hijack the Gameover Zeus botnet, an extremely resilient and sophisticated crime machine that helped an elite group of thieves steal more than $100 million from banks, businesses and consumers worldwide."

[Dayuhan]

They have had time to sit down and to rethink their collapse and they apparently learned from it and focused on a rebuild of the military and military projection powers, they definitely have played a great economic game using gas/pipelines and oil, and politically are now playing the UW card against NATO and attempting to split the EU from the US which they have in effect achieved to a degree.

I don't see how they've "split the EU from the US"... if anything the Ukraine events have brought the EU and US closer.

We on the other hand in the last 25 years seem to have forgotten the old ideology war games ---we are so wrapped up in our own internal political right/left/tea party games for especially the last ten years we have simply "missed" what the rest of the world is thinking/doing.

The distractions have been multiple, and the "right/left/tea party games" are less a problem than the economic crisis and the burden of legacy wars. Still, I don't see any evidence to suggest disconnection from "what the rest of the world is thinking". As always, the "rest of the world" is thinking all kinds of different things, all of which have to be managed on a case to case basis.

You are right the core question is Russian a national threat?---if one looks at the willingness recently to fly a SU29 30 meters in front of a RC135 and flash weapons then I would say they are already a national threat especially since that flashing had to be approved by the central flight controller of the SU

How does that constitute a threat?

if they are scooping up all our "former" allies and are sponsoring new friends in the ME and Africa

Who exactly have they "scooped up", and who have they sponsored?

We could though take the high ground and via "soft power" look the other way stating they are not a threat but then what does the long term look like especially if Putin controls until 2024?

Or we could go all hysterical and exaggerate the threat all out of proportion.

Or we could stay calm and assess the threat realistically.

In specific, real-world terms, what are we afraid of? What do we think the Russians are going to do that we don't want them to do?

"Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." The author quotes one reference but I had seen references to this in several Interfax press releases over the last four weeks and had wondered about it---nothing-nothing was mentioned in the US media and this is a threat as it impacts a really long term ME ally which has had strained ties with us the last several years by our all over the map foreign policy regarding Syria, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood support.

So what's the supposed deal, and what's it meant to accomplish? Claims like that need a reference.

[OUTLAW 09]

I don't see how they've "split the EU from the US"... if anything the Ukraine events have brought the EU and US closer.



The distractions have been multiple, and the "right/left/tea party games" are less a problem than the economic crisis and the burden of legacy wars. Still, I don't see any evidence to suggest disconnection from "what the rest of the world is thinking". As always, the "rest of the world" is thinking all kinds of different things, all of which have to be managed on a case to case basis.



How does that constitute a threat?



Who exactly have they "scooped up", and who have they sponsored?



Or we could go all hysterical and exaggerate the threat all out of proportion.

Or we could stay calm and assess the threat realistically.

In specific, real-world terms, what are we afraid of? What do we think the Russians are going to do that we don't want them to do?



So what's the supposed deal, and what's it meant to accomplish? Claims like that need a reference.

Dayuhan---here is a short reply to your comments---flashing onboard weapons array to an in neutral waters flying RJ135 is even in say the height of the Cold War "absolutely abnorm"---even today Russian pilots are still centrally controlled meaning before he made his move it was approved from higher---thus a serious violation of "neutral waters norms" even from Cold War "norms" thus a threat to the aircraft and crew---which I am sure was immediately passed to the National Command Authority during a security briefing.

Secondly, and this goes to the questions Bill raises---what are the Russians thinking/doing and are they a "perceived or direct threat to the US".

Example: how many times here in SWJ comments have you seen written "well NATO did in fact push membership right up to the Russian borders and yes Russia has a right to feel threatened by these moves"---recognize the comments--you see them all the time from various American political pundits and left leaning writers.

Russia has been drum beating this idea to death--we are in violation of agreements about how far NATO can go with recruiting new members ie Baltics, Georgia, Moldavia etc.
REALITY: Gorbartschow and Bush senior did have a small side bar conversation during those talks ---there Bush did casually mention to Gorbi when Gorbi asked about NATO intentions that NATO would not push eastwards---this was during the 4 plus 2 treaty discussions on German reunification conducted in Berlin. The side bar THOUGH continue with the following comment---we will need to further discuss this---it was never then followed up on by either side nor ever written up and agreed to as a side treaty such as was the plus 2 agreements.

Gorbartschow admitted in a recent Russian TV interview in the last few days that this was a big failure on his part and it has led to the Ukrainian problem. Interesting comment if one asks me.

BUT just how did Russia get the conversation written into a treaty that they are now constantly complaining about we "violated"---good question is it not? There is a propaganda theory that says if one repeats something often enough then the general population starts to believe it is true---is that at work here with this drum beat?

Next: Russian has been constantly throwing in the face of the US/NATO/EU that the Ukrainians were not holding to the Feb 21 agreements worked out by France, Germany, Poland FMs--NOW here is the kicker Russia only sent a Human Rights Observer to those meeting and both he and the Russian government "refused" to sign them BUT now these agreements somehow has the power of a "treaty"---JUST how did that happen?
Next: The Swiss Chairman of the OCSE visited Putin recently to discuss with him a proposed roadmap for deescalating the Ukrainian issue---REMEMBER this was a discuss only visit and he had no legal binding commitment from the rest of the OCSE---then there is still the drum beat by Russia even today that the Ukrainians are in violation of the OCSE agreements---REALITY---is was a discussion JUST how did it become a "treaty" in the eyes of Putin to be throw against the West as an example of how aggressive the West is against Russia.
Next: The Russians did sign the 1994 Memorandum to Recognize the Sovereignty of the Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons--REALITY---Russia openly recently stated that they do not feel bound by that Memo.
Next: In the 4 plus 2 German Reunification treaties it clearly states that NATO will out create long term large scale military bases in the eastern part of Germany or the new eastern NATO members nor will they station nuclear weapons in eastern German and the Baltics. Notice the mention of eastern Germany. REALITY: For the last week or two there has been a Russian media drumbeat that NATO has violated those treaties by conducting military exercises using rotational troops and stationing additional aircraft in Poland and the Baltics.
AGAIN claiming NATO somehow violated treaties but no where in those treaties is it defined that military exercises cannot be held in those countries. And NOW Russia "feels" physically "threatened" by those exercises. WHAT are the Russians reading that the West cannot seem to understand when the treaties written in English?
Next: The current Russian signed INF treaty states that the development and deployment of mobile launched nuclear cruise missiles over a certain distance is a violation---Russia is in direct violation of this treaty and the US has refrained from bringing this to the attention of the world because they think they need Russia assistance in Syria, Iran, and NK---but notice the Iranian talks are breaking down with absolutely no assistance from Russia, the Syrian issue is just as dead with no assistance from Russia and NK is still threatening a nuclear test which even concerns the Chinese--again no Russian assistance. And in Iraq the Russians are merrily pumping oil/gas and developing new fields.

And you find none of this is a "perceived threat or direct threat to the US"?

[Dayuhan]

And you find none of this is a "perceived threat or direct threat to the US"?

Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

[OUTLAW 09]

Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

Dayuhan---here is a partial answer which goes along way in supporting what I am saying.

By the way today via Interfax one of the most influential advisors to Putin called for a "no fly zone" which would be implemented by Russia over eastern Ukraine. Now check what the Phase Five is of the new Russian UW strategy called "New Generation Warfare". It also mentions using a "no fly zone" again assumed to be implemented one sided by Russia.

Are these enough current examples to get you to look at ongoing political events, actors and their actions in another light?

The reference to the private Saudi and Russian oil conversations is also pointed to. DID you by any chance see anything mentioned about this in any of the western media?--I did not.

After years of looking to the West for their defense contracts, Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are showing a willingness to diversify economic alliances.

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.11 This is based on the Saudis understanding of Russia’s interest in Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas resources. This move would change the strategic landscape by threatening the world’s fragile economic recovery, and would negatively affect the United States, as its influence in the region would continue to decline.

It appears even the Egyptians are sensing a resurgence of Russian presence in the Middle East, especially after the U.S. decided to curtail aid in the wake of the military ouster of elected President Mohammed Morsi. The Kremlin viewed the strained relationship between the U.S. and Egypt as an opportunity to forge new ties with old friends. Although, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Badr Abdelk Atty, tried to play down a meeting between the governments by providing a conciliatory and well-crafted statement: “this will not come at the expense of the relationship with the United States.”

Reference the KSA comment:
11. S. Energy Information Administration, This Week in Petroleum, May 25, 2011

Russia is doing investment and arms deals now with Egypt, is providing a constant stream of weapons and oil shipments via Iran into Syria, and is talking with Algeria as well on arms deals and talking with Saudia Arabia about common gas investments.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---here are the eight phases of the new Russian UW strategy doctrine and then ask yourself---there is no perceived threat to the US and or US global interests especially when the new Chinese military doctrine "Three Stages of Warfare" mirror a similar tone and theme.

Now look at the phases and ask yourself---how many and which ones have seen being implemented in the Ukraine and Crimea? Then ask which ones can be used in the Baltics, Moldavia and Georgia?

The phases of new-generation war can be schematized as (Tchekinov & Bogdanov,
2013, pp. 15-22):
First Phase: non-military asymmetric warfare (encompassing information, moral, psychological, ideological, diplomatic, and economic measures as part of a plan to establish a favorable political, economic, and military setup).
Second Phase: special operations to mislead political and military leaders by coordinated measures carried out by diplomatic channels, media, and top government and military agencies y leaking false data, orders, directives, and instructions.
Third Phase: intimidation, deceiving, and bribing government and military officers, with the objective of making them abandon their service duties.
Fourth Phase: destabilizing propaganda to increase discontent among the population, boosted by the arrival of Russian bands of militants, escalating subversion.
Fifth Phase: establishment of no-fly zones over the country to be attacked, imposition of blockades, and extensive use of private military companies in close cooperation with armed opposition units.
Sixth Phase: commencement of military action, immediately preceded by large-scale reconnaissance and subversive missions. All types, forms, methods, and forces, including special operations forces, space, radio, radio engineering, electronic, diplomatic, and secret service intelligence, and industrial espionage.
Seventh Phase: combination of targeted information operation, electronic warfare operation, aerospace operation, continuous airforce harassment, combined with the use of high precision weapons launched from various platforms (long-range artillery, and weapons based on new physical principles, including microwaves, radiation, non-lethal biological weapons).
Eighth Phase: roll over the remaining points of resistance and destroy surviving enemy units by special operations conducted by reconnaissance units to spot which enemy units have survived and transmit their coordinates to the attacker's missile and artillery units; fire barrages to annihilate the defender's resisting army units by effective advanced weapons; airdrop
operations to surround points of resistance; and territory mopping-up operations by
ground troops.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---this was written recently about the new Russian UW strategy which is being practiced by Russia in the Crimea and Ukraine.

See if it does not indicate a underlying long term strategic threat to the US:

In other words, the Russians have placed the idea of influence at the very center of their operational planning and used all possible levers to achieve this: skillful internal communications; deception operations; psychological operations and well-constructed external communications. Crucially, they have demonstrated an innate understanding of the three key target audiences and their probably behavior: the Russian speaking majority in Crimea; the
Ukrainian government; the international community, specifically NATO and the EU. Armed with this information they knew what to do, when and what the outcomes were likely to be,demonstrating that that the ancient Soviet art of reflexive control is alive and well in the Kremlin.

This is very relevant to understanding its strategic significance, since it is the operationalization of a new form of warfare that cannot be characterized as a military campaign in the classic sense of the term.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan--this goes to what I have been saying--is the double standard that Russia uses in their UW strategy a perceived threat against the US if it is directed in support to their political war with the Ukraine.

Example of double standards and not called such by the West.

Today from RIA concerning "humanitarian" assistance.
MOSCOW, June 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is sending humanitarian aid to eastern Ukraine in cooperation with the independence supporters, as the Kiev authorities are not collaborating with Moscow in that field, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday.

“We are trying to send humanitarian aid to those who did not leave the military zone, and late May we have sent a special request to the Ukrainian authorities to get the permission to deliver such aid,” Lavrov said.

Today this from the Ukrainian media:
This from the Ukrainian side concerning the same Russian "humanitarian" assistance---notice what items the Russian government is sending the citizens of Donbas---evidently not emergency food , blankets, or water---as they were not mentioned by the Russian FM.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov admitted that Russia is assisting separatists in the Donbas. He stated this at a meeting with the OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier.

Lavrov said that Russia supplies “humanitarian aid” with the assistance of militants. Diplomat Lavrov did not specify what type of “humanitarian aid” it is.

But the warlord of terrorists I .Girkin (Strelok) published the plain truth (or rather, almost all). Here is what he wrote in the social media: “Humanitarian aid from Russia has finally reached Slovyansk yesterday. Our special thanks for bulletproof helmets (see photo, green, brand new, gleaming) of a high degree of protection. This is exactly what our guys are missing when they crawl in the trenches under a sniper fire.”

According to the Ukrainian State Border Agency only last week there were several breakthroughs of mechanized armed terrorist groups from the Russian Federation. Army trucks, armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition were part of the equipment that got through.

So again is the game Russia is playing under their new UW strategy published in 2013 a perceived threat to US global interests-IMO yes it is

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---again another example of a Russian military decision that in effect is a threat against US interests as well as NATO interests since you asked for examples. Again this decision is being driven by their new military doctrine.

IMO I would see this as a challenge/threat to both NATO and the US.

This is referencing the French sale of there Mistral helicopter carriers to the Russians.

"Meanwhile, current Russian statements indicate that the military apparently has changed its mind about where to deploy its new Mistral-class vessels.

Originally they were to be based at Vladivostok for deployment with Russia's Pacific Fleet. Now, however, the Navy evidently wants to deploy the first two ships in the Black Sea where they could threaten every littoral state in the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, and the Caucasus. The potential deployment of the latter two ships in the Baltic Sea has also quite reasonably aroused intense protests from Poland and the Baltic States, all of whom readily remember their many long years spent under Moscow's control.

In this context it becomes clear that from Moscow's standpoint it is winning or at least incurring acceptable costs. Meanwhile the West's behavior merely confirms the official Russian diagnosis that the West is weak, corrupt, divided, and irresolute."

[Dayuhan]

This gets annoying. In one post you write:

This was taken from a new Russian SWJ article that goes to the point I am making about the threat.

"Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." The author quotes one reference but I had seen references to this in several Interfax press releases over the last four weeks and had wondered about it---nothing-nothing was mentioned in the US media and this is a threat as it impacts a really long term ME ally which has had strained ties with us the last several years by our all over the map foreign policy regarding Syria, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood support.

In another:

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.11 This is based on the Saudis understanding of Russia’s interest in Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas resources. This move would change the strategic landscape by threatening the world’s fragile economic recovery, and would negatively affect the United States, as its influence in the region would continue to decline.

Then we look here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ops-Syria.html

And what do we see:

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

If you're going to cut and paste from public sources, please cite them.

This stuff is not new, and it's in no way secret. This article was from August 2013, pre-Ukraine, almost a year ago. The "deal" was anything but "secret": it was immediately and widely reported and saw a lot of discussion back in the day. The deal never went through: the Russians did not back away from Assad, the Saudis never went through with the arms buy that was going to be part of the deal. It's old news and non-news.

Even if the deal had gone through, despite the rather hysterical headline the parties involved were never going to "control the global oil market". Much of what the Saudis "offered" was not in their power to assure. The article you quoted but didn't cite makes that clear:

Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LNG). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.

The claim that control over Eastern Med gas was offered is also specious: the Saudis allegedly offered not to compete with the Russians in that area, but there is absolutely nothing the Saudis could do to prevent American, European, or Chinese companies from getting involved.

This is a better article covering the same issues:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9760OQ20130807

In short, you've pasted material directly from an old article, without a citation. You've misrepresented it as new, and distorted the contents to support a contention of threat. That to me is an insult to the forum and everyone on it, and I personally hope it isn't repeated.

What actually is fairly recent news is that the Russians have signed a long term deal to supply gas to China, starting with 38 billion BCM/year four years down the line and eventually rising to 130 BCM/year. That of course was predictable: Putin is concerned about future sanctions and about Europe finally looking for other sources. I'm sure he'd rather start the deal sooner, but it will take years to build the pipeline infrastructure. That's not a huge issue of course, because it will also take years for the Europeans to reroute their infrastructure away from Russian gas. These things don't happen overnight.

Before anyone cites this as an example of a budding Sino-Russian alliance, note the prices to be paid. Brother Han knew Putin needed another market, put the screws on, and got himself an exceptional deal, closer to North American prices than Asian prices on gas that doesn't have to pass the straits of Hormuz and/or Malacca.

Given that, it's pretty clear that the Russians are not putting any great faith in a long-failed deal to protect their dominance of the European gas market.

[Ulenspiegel]

Dayuhan---again another example of a Russian military decision that in effect is a threat against US interests as well as NATO interests since you asked for examples. Again this decision is being driven by their new military doctrine.

IMO I would see this as a challenge/threat to both NATO and the US.

This is referencing the French sale of there Mistral helicopter carriers to the Russians.

"Meanwhile, current Russian statements indicate that the military apparently has changed its mind about where to deploy its new Mistral-class vessels.

Originally they were to be based at Vladivostok for deployment with Russia's Pacific Fleet. Now, however, the Navy evidently wants to deploy the first two ships in the Black Sea where they could threaten every littoral state in the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, and the Caucasus. The potential deployment of the latter two ships in the Baltic Sea has also quite reasonably aroused intense protests from Poland and the Baltic States, all of whom readily remember their many long years spent under Moscow's control.

In this context it becomes clear that from Moscow's standpoint it is winning or at least incurring acceptable costs. Meanwhile the West's behavior merely confirms the official Russian diagnosis that the West is weak, corrupt, divided, and irresolute."

Sorry, if Russia pose not only in your OPINION a strategic thread to Europe, you should be able to explain in a coherent way, copy paste does not count, how Russia could pull of a successful startegy when it has a waker miltary, a waker economy and a political model that is highly unattractive for most us poor souls in Europe.

At the moment I only see some tactical stunts but not a coherent strategy, and it is for me as German interesting that you sell me this as thread. :-)

[kaur]

Ulenspiegel, you should tell Ukrainians and Georgians that they are just victims of some tactical stunts and there is no reason to worry If you see no problem telling them this, then I'd like to hear your definition of "tactical stunt".

[OUTLAW 09]

Sorry, if Russia pose not only in your OPINION a strategic thread to Europe, you should be able to explain in a coherent way, copy paste does not count, how Russia could pull of a successful startegy when it has a waker miltary, a waker economy and a political model that is highly unattractive for most us poor souls in Europe.

At the moment I only see some tactical stunts but not a coherent strategy, and it is for me as German interesting that you sell me this as thread. :-)

Are you actually sure you want to maintain the statement that Russia has a "weaker" military ---are you sure you want to maintain your statement that Russia has a "weaker" economy when all the German companies apply pressure to Merkel to not cut into their Russian profits and their Russian investments with further sanctions.

If you think the German Army is equal to the current newly modernized Russian Army then you need to Google a little bit better. Then Google the following---new Russian nuclear doctrine 2010---then try to state Russia is "weak".

If you think Russian is conducting "stunts" then why did three T72s cross today from Russian into eastern Ukraine when Putin told the Germans and Europeans he was "securing" the Russia/Ukrainian border.

So Putin was telling the entire EU/NATO the "truth" that the Russian Ukrainian border was "secure".

If you want to understand the current Russian strategy then Google "New Russian Generation Warfare".

If you cannot find it then I can paste it for you---read the strategy and then tell me there is no coherent strategy and that is indeed a thread.

It was written by a Latvian military researcher---tell him that there is no strategy.

[OUTLAW 09]

Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

Dayuhan--three T72s and a number of other armored vehicles "crossed" today into eastern Ukraine through a Russian border that Putin officially stated he had instructed the FSB and Federal Border Security Service to close the border. They crossed at a known official Russian border crossing point.

So is this a perceived or actual threat.

So did Putin actually tell the US/EU the truth that the border was secure and he is not supporting separatists are was he basically lying.

so if lying on this ---are you willing to then trust him when he says something else.

This is the fourth time Putin has "officially" misstated himself.

International Relations is usually built on a set of standards between countries so now we have one country that is simply stating a "truth" which later turns out to be a blatant lie.

So a perceived threat or actual threat? so how does one then build long term relationship when lies are the dominant basis of the relationship.

Have you really read both the 2010 new Russian nuclear doctrine and their 2013 UW strategy called the New Generation Warfare?

Please read both and then tell me how you view and interpret both documents and please refrain from making comments until you read them an answer my question ---perceived threat or actual threat on the two doctrines which are the core basis now for all Russian foreign policy decisions?

By the way I noticed you failed to respond to the Saudi article concerning their private deal offer to the Russians---perceived or actual threat to the US?

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---Russian has completely modernized over the last seven years their nuclear force, and will add two new heavy ballistic missile's to the inventory by 2016 and have violated the INF they signed by developing and deploying a mobile nuclear capable cruise missile.

Now reread their new nuclear doctrine from 2010 and now read how much it will take for the US to modernize their aging nuclear force.

Congressional auditors say official estimates are ignoring key expenses for the U.S. nuclear force, such as costs of overhauling missiles and aircraft. The Defense and Energy departments indicated that they planned to spend roughly $263.8 billion on the atomic arsenal over the coming decade, but their projections omitted significant items while obscuring “assumptions and limitations,” according to a Tuesday report by the Government Accountability Office

There is talk that Congress is unwilling to spend that much---so one side is completely rearmed nuclear wise, the other side not---and we are dealing with a leader in power until 2024 who has a track record of lying---so who do you trust to fulfill any signed treaties.

Perceived or actual threat?

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan--three T72s and a number of other armored vehicles "crossed" today into eastern Ukraine through a Russian border that Putin officially stated he had instructed the FSB and Federal Border Security Service to close the border. They crossed at a known official Russian border crossing point.

So is this a perceived or actual threat.

It's a threat to the Ukraine. The US is not the Ukraine.

So did Putin actually tell the US/EU the truth that the border was secure and he is not supporting separatists are was he basically lying.

so if lying on this ---are you willing to then trust him when he says something else.

Of course he's lying, and of course we shouldn't trust him. Nothing new there; did anyone ever trust him?

Have you really read both the 2010 new Russian nuclear doctrine and their 2013 UW strategy called the New Generation Warfare?

Please read both and then tell me how you view and interpret both documents and please refrain from making comments until you read them an answer my question ---perceived threat or actual threat on the two doctrines which are the core basis now for all Russian foreign policy decisions?

I think you cherry pick these documents and distort them to justify an elevated perception of threat. I would use the term "potential threat", rather than perceived or actual.

Russia spending more than the US on their nuclear arsenal is not necessarily a huge deal: like much of their military, the nuclear side has suffered from neglect for a long time, and they've a lot of expensive catching up to do just to keep it functional. MAD remains firmly in place and remains a considerable deterrent to nuclear use.

By the way I noticed you failed to respond to the Saudi article concerning their private deal offer to the Russians---perceived or actual threat to the US?

You mean the points where you copy/past quotes from articles nearly a year old, fail to cite the source articles, misrepresent the supposed deal as "new", with the inevitable breathless and unsupported references to miscellaneous Interfax press releases?

Please see post #32 above. It's old news and non-news. That offer was made last August, and it was simply an attempt to bribe the Russians into dumping Assad. It failed; the Russians didn't bite. So what? Where's the threat?

[Bill Moore]

D ayuhan

Using your logic the Nazis were only a threat to Poland, and the Japanese were only a threat to China. Russian aggression unchallenged in the Ukraine threatens our interests globally in subtle and not so subtle ways by changing international norms. Others are watching to see how they can employ their military and paramilitary in creative ways outside accepted inter ational norms.

[kaur]

To continue Bill's thought. Following pic is from French general A. Beuafre's book "Strategy of Action" (1967), where he tried to explain Hitler's activity before II WW. Today we can draw similar scheme about Russia's activity in and around Ukraine with list of actors with different interests - USA, NATO, EU, different memberstates etc. Would be interesting reading