| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | |
| Experts see decline in Russia's military | |
| 2007-11-19 | |
Putin owes his broad popularity to an oil-fueled economic boom that has helped increase wages and pensions, as well as efforts to revive Russia's clout. But critics say that the Russian military is only a shadow of the Soviet Army and that bellicose statements from the Kremlin mask a steady decline of its potential. "The revival of Russia's military might under Putin is merely a myth," Stanislav Belkovsky, who head the Institute for National Strategy, said at a presentation of the report. "The Russian armed forces have degraded completely under Putin." | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 You talking about Hillary? LOL |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-19 20:30 |
| #14 It helps to have the media understand that if they fail to present the news "fairly" you are willing to revert to more primitive methods to influence public opinion. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-19 20:27 |
| #13 I did say 'perception'. And my friends did emigrate. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-19 20:23 |
| #12 As I recall from Odom's book, there was plenty of corruption in the Soviet Army at the NCO level in terms of extortion from conscripts, at very senior levels in the normal nomenklatura mode, with the mid-level officers behaving to get on the senior officer gravy train. The soviet system was not some non-corrupt system in which all were honest, or else it would have worked better. The biggest change has probably been a substitution of conspicuous transparent corruption for violent/penal means of coercion and lying to the center about production and quality. Decide for yourself if you consider that less corrupt. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-19 20:17 |
| #11 Meant to add that Putin's popularity is due in good part to the perception that he himself is not corrupt/venal and that he took on the corrupt apparachniks and capitalists who flourished in the chaos after the fall. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-19 19:48 |
| #10 Some Russian emigre friends of mine, now US citizens, say that corruption became widespread and open in the last 7-10 years of the USSR. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-19 19:47 |
| #9 "Corruption ... was small during/under communism" > no, "corruption" was hidden or covert. Under Soviet Communism, Govt. was Producer, Consumer, and Deciding Arbiter-Intermediary - BY THIS SCOPE, THE GOVERNMENT = CCCP WAS ROUGHLY THE MAFIA-UNDERWORLD/BLACK MARKET AS WELL. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 19:10 |
| #8 The military continues to suffer from rampant corruption, inefficiency and poor morale, the report said. The Kremlin has also failed to deliver on its promises to modernize arsenals, it said. Corruption can derail just about anything of importance to a nation. A quick look at the MME (Muslim Middle East) serves up proof of that. It is especially damaging in the procurement of weapons and equipment that must be highly reliable and are mission critical. The biggie is when it comes to upkeep and replacement of Russia's aging nuclear arsenal. These puppies are the military's fussy little purebreds and they require a lot of expensive maintenance to keep in working order. Modernizing land forces, laying keels for a blue water navy and keeping the showroom shine on your nukes is a damnably expensive proposition, even without corruption riding on your back like a bloodtick. Factor in Russia's endemic corruption and their chances of raising a highly functional, well-equipped and modernized military are near-zilch. All the oil revenue in the world can't buy you the best army otherwise the Arabs would have been sweeping through their side of the world long before now. It take competent loyal incorruptible officers and especially non-commissioned officers to make an effective military. That is a derivative of culture not industrial base. This is the bottom line, per a military mindset, and something that has been utterly elusive for Soviets and modern Russians alike. The corruption is the big thing. This was small during communism, but has exploded since then. I disagree in that corruption has always been rampant, the only difference being that during the Soviet era it was done in the name of the state. As I always say when people wonder why Russia has descended into such gangsterism, "They just took off their uniforms". All the other apparatus for graft and bribery remains in place and functions sickeningly well. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-19 11:56 |
| #7 It's worth recalling the old saw that an army of lambs lead by a lion will always prevail over an army of lions lead by a lamb. Russia seems to have plenty of lions available, but the combined tsarist/communist legacy has left a culture incapable of organization. At the philosophical level it is an ongoing failure to recognize the efficiency of markets while continually choosing crudely concentrated individual command and control. Better quit before I start sounding like Joseph M. - he could finish this analysis. |
| Posted by: Haliburton - Border Control Divison 2007-11-19 10:42 |
| #6 The corruption is the big thing. This was small during communism, but has exploded since then. It all comes down to training. Most Russian soldiers are given the briefest familiarization with their weapons and don't do much with them after. Pilots don't fly much, tankers don't drive and shoot much, artillery doesn't fire much, and soldiers don't shoot and maneuver much. You can have the best military toys in the world and if you don't know how to use them well, a lesser armed force with high degrees of training and motivation will wipe the floor with you (see Israel vs Arabs Six day war and Yom Kippor). |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-11-19 09:46 |
| #5 Yes, yes, I can see them dumping oil derived moneys into their armed forces to get them back to the prime level they were when or just before they rode into Afghanistan. All the oil revenue in the world can't buy you the best army otherwise the Arabs would have been sweeping through their side of the world long before now. It take competent loyal incorruptible officers and especially non-commissioned officers to make an effective military. That is a derivative of culture not industrial base. So Puty can spend his nations wealth on all the kings horse and all the kings men, but he's not going to put together anything more than something to awe the civilian protesters. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-19 09:07 |
| #4 They can't afford what they have. When internal troops like the border guards and MVD (light infantry to motorized infantry) are counted, Russia had larger armed forces than the USA and 3 times the reserves with less than half the population and $0.75 trillion GDP ($2.0T PPP) vs USA's $13.5T. Even what remains of their economy will collapse when the developed world moves away from oil. Let's just hope the next US administration does a better (or any) job than the current one in this regard. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-11-19 08:31 |
| #3 If Russia pumps oil, it is good for America. If Russia wants to reassemble its empire, it's bad for America. There is little else in Russia that matters to America, I suspect. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-19 07:21 |
| #2 However, with a resurgent and aggressive China on its southern border, a weak Russia is not necessarily a good thing for the US either. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-11-19 03:53 |
| #1 SW: One would like to think that all this is true, but I think we're seeing the return of Kremlinology. Kremlinology is typically conducted in the West. These are, I believe, Russian think tanks. That's why the people quoted are cited as critics. From the standpoint of American interests, a weak Russia isn't necessarily a bad thing. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-11-19 01:47 |