In the military aviation and space forum there is a stimulating thread taking place: "Germany Considers Tornado Replacement" which presents an informed discussion of the capabilities and costs of a central European nation's airforce and what direction should they place their money; do they even need an airforce? What are the realistic threats? Do we have to buy from the crazy people?

IMO the thread is kind of stalled because it now has, of necessity, turned to threat assessment and that means politics and that runs up against a rule or a tradition that other than in passing, politics shall not be discussed in military aviation and space. There is a discussion that needs to take place about how to assess Russia under Putin, including the military perspective, and Germany's defense needs land square in the middle of that discussion. This seems the place to continue with the political / military aspect.

Fortuitously, there is a Frontline series of two programs currently running and the first is available at PBS or on youtube which I think is very helpful in assessing the state of affairs of Russia vs the United States, but it also lays out fairly clearly the situation in Europe. The title of the series is Putin's Revenge. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-revenge/

Here is a snippet from a synopsis of part 1. It was written by a reviewer unknown to me, but I might have written much the same on a good day:

Most of Part 1 traces the sources of “a lifetime of grievances” Putin had developed against our dear nation that led him to want “revenge.” If you can summon an extremely high level of objectivity to see how real these “grievances” might seem to Putin, you can perhaps understand Putin’s motivations. I am certainly not a Putin admirer, and I’m not suggesting that you should sympathize with his grievances, but Part 1 offers a pretty good chance to see things through Putin’s eyes and to perhaps see how U.S. smugness and domination looks to those on the receiving end. Here goes:

Putin is a Russian nationalist/patriot. He came up through the KGB, which trained him to think of the United States as “the enemy” and rival of the Soviet Union in a struggle for global dominance. Over the course of Putin’s life, he has seen the Soviet Union fall apart and Russia’s standing as a leading world power dramatically reduced..............................

When Putin saw Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi being torn into pieces by an angry mob, he saw what would happen to himself if the Americans had their way, but (as the film’s narrator says) “Putin was determined that Gadhafi’s fate would not be his own.”

Putin won a third term as president in March of 2012, but the election fraud was so blatant that angry Putin opponents were in the streets chanting “Putin Must Go.” To Putin, this looked like U.S. influence, specifically that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom he neither likes nor trusts.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink ... against-us

It would be great to have a discussion with others who have read the thread and are following the PBS documentary.

salttee wrote:

It would be great to have a discussion with others who have read the thread and are following the PBS documentary.

Great idea to move the political talk from MilAv, I've just downloaded the podcasts so I'll have a listen and see if I have anything to contribute.

A couple of years ago I´ve read a book about Geography and how it influences human matters: The Revenge of Geography by Robert D. Kaplan. On the chapter about Russia, the thesis was that the geography of that Country brings it to be intrinsecally vulnerable, with no easy access to southers seas (Indian Ocean mostly), surrounded on all sides by unfriendly or outright hostile nations and being substantially a flat land, easily accessible by potential invaders. This has been the case for centuries and it happened many times that foreign powers tried to invade Russia. This has created a sort of constant phobia/paranoia in the Russian spirit, for which they constatly feel in danger of being attacked and brings them to be proactively aggressive.
If the thesis of this book is correct, maybe one way to deal with Russia is to make them feel safe and make clear that there are no aggressive intentions towards them.

steman wrote:

If the thesis of this book is correct, maybe one way to deal with Russia is to make them feel safe and make clear that there are no aggressive intentions towards them.

Which would be a blatant lie. No Russian beyond Jeltzin will fall for it.

After WWII Soviet and also later Russian doctrine was to never have such a devastating war inside their own territory.

In his early years as leader Putin offered cooperation to the West on a regular basis. ( complemeting talk ( but just talk ) from the West.
he was snubbed and the US after their lapdog Jeltzin who had provided easy access for corporate invasion was gone
started to push for domination again. The US achived to place vast numbers of burning doormats between Russia and its former fringe
between Russian and the EU.

IMU Putin and his political environment combine real patriotism with cool analysis and some effective strategic thinking.

apropos Kaplan:
what you recite is just superficial... and note that he subscribes to American Exceptionalism.

Now go back to Halford Mackinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder
and his theory of a geographical pivot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geogr ... of_History
and then suddenly it is much clearer why the US, still in the throes of NeoCon politics,
is so busy and aggressively pushing on Russia.
Russia must be under their influence to achieve their goals.
At the moment it looks like they are in the final rush to win ( or more likely fail and go under).
Europe, Russia and China in coop is the death knell for US dominance.

steman wrote:

maybe one way to deal with Russia is to make them feel safe and make clear that there are no aggressive intentions towards them.

I agree with your sentiments, I too questioned the wisdom of the NATO expansion that took place in the 1990s, but what is done is done, Germany has to look at the circumstance as it exists today as they make their decision of how much "defense" they actually need. I know that there are people who share WIederling's view that the US is the great Satan and I know that the undercurrent of that idea does exist in Europe, but I don't think that argument holds much purchase with the people who have to make the decisions about what the Tornado's replacement should be. They have to deal with the world as it is, not as it might (or might not) have existed in some alternate universe.

The reality is that there is no intention to attack Russia, not in Germany and not in the United States. In contrast to that reality is the fact that the Putin government is proceeding as if there is a direct threat to Russia's existence.

Therein lies a problem which complicates Germany's decision.

The PBS documentary is quite interesting and they might be spot on. Putin is just frustrated that Russia isn't a major player anymore and thus forces itself on the world stage. He plays with this Russian feeling of wanting to be a superpower and Putin must appear to be a strong leader for his own people or he will lose support.

Nobody wants a war with Russia, but if Russia keeps threatening it neighbors and actually invaded them and destabilizing them.

Thanks, will give it a shot tonight.

Will be interesting to see if this documentary actually gets to the underlying cause of the conflict between Russia and the west.

Particularly the cause-effect line. What I see from posts on this forum, western media and speaking to my buddies back in Canada is that not many understand that after the shit the west and in particular the United States pulled in the 90's and early 2000's, we have no reason to trust you guys and Russia's actions right now are a reaction to your actions. Not the other way around.

Ok, I'll bite, which shit is that?

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I'll bite, which shit is that?

The NATO expansion and Bush's rebuffing Putin's willingness to cooperate after 9-11.

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I'll bite, which shit is that?

The NATO expansion and Bush's rebuffing Putin's willingness to cooperate after 9-11.

NATO expansion is just pure ego if they object to that. Don't know what you mean by the second.

Dutchy wrote:

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I'll bite, which shit is that?

The NATO expansion and Bush's rebuffing Putin's willingness to cooperate after 9-11.

NATO expansion is just pure ego if they object to that. Don't know what you mean by the second.

No it is more than pure ego. I can very easily understand a Russian feeling threatened when they see their former allies turned against them with NATO invading their (or what they see as their) sphere of influence.

Remember the Iraq war? Iraq had been an ally of Russia. Then there's Chechnya, Putin seems to believe, or at least tries to sell the idea, that the US (CIA) was responsible for the Chechen revolution against Russia. After 9-11 Putin had offered to go in partnership with the US against Islamic terror. Bush treated it as if it were just a Machiavellian fraud, and the US went it alone. I think Bush's people probably read Putin correctly, but it gives Russian loyalists another peg to hang their hats on.

That subject goes back to the apartment bombings, which I have no doubt were engineered by Putin himself.

"feeling threatened" is just that, feeling and Russian government is cultivating that feeling, there is no treat and that is the point. But since we see how Russia treats its neighbors, I can see how some countries feel threatened by Russia.

Sphere of influence = ego.

tu204 wrote:

not many understand that after the shit the west and in particular the United States pulled in the 90's and early 2000's, we have no reason to trust you guys and Russia's actions right now are a reaction to your actions. Not the other way around.

...because history started in 1991, right Ivan?

Putin's Revenge was an interesting piece because it would start with real, and somewhat interesting facts about Putin's biography. Then the narration would veer toward the 2016 US election and fade into a frenzy of broad brush strokes, and vague accusations. Putin must have done something to the people in rural Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan etc. That's the actual point, yet they don't explain how that works in their minds. But in general Putin is an interesting character.

Flighty wrote:

Putin's Revenge was an interesting piece because it would start with real, and somewhat interesting facts about Putin's biography. Then the narration would veer toward the 2016 US election and fade into a frenzy of broad brush strokes, and vague accusations. Putin must have done something to the people in rural Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan etc. That's the actual point, yet they don't explain how that works in their minds. But in general Putin is an interesting character.

Not "in their minds" but in reality.

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-facebook ... ngs-698969

Fake stories were posted on social media and right wing sources like 4Chan and Infowars and Breitbart and Fox just went with it.

Add to that the gerrymandering by Republicans and laws making voting harder for Democrats and minorities and there you have it.

Basically, Republicans can not run on their ideas and morals because they have neither, so they have to rig things to win.

seb146 wrote:

Fake stories were posted on social media and right wing sources like 4Chan and Infowars and Breitbart and Fox just went with it.

Fake news in the US media scape is nothing new.

Actually you've set yourself a worthy task to find something that is down to earth true non leveraged information.

Then the US is so very busy ( and has been for ages ) to inundate unsuspecting citizens in foreign nations with their
special view on things less directly usually via well financed NGO entities.

All this avoids the question: what should Germany buy to replace the Tornado?
Do they need a state of the art fighter/bomber or is it in their best interests to just get a few Euro fighters just to make a show?

Huh? You made this thread about Russia, not the Tornado replacement

Dutchy wrote:

Sphere of influence = ego.

Sphere of influence = power & money

Russia is loosing tremendous amounts of economic influence with each and every former satellite state reorienting towards western/global trade. And by that they are loosing power and a lot of money...

salttee wrote:

All this avoids the question: what should Germany buy to replace the Tornado?

They should get the best that's available right now - which would be the F35 - and then start a joint European program for the next generation, 20 years down the road.

Dutchy wrote:

Huh? You made this thread about Russia, not the Tornado replacement

Read the OP again, this thread is intended to go where the MilAv thread could not go: into the militiary/political assessment of what the threat Germany sees that it needs to face. My tag line was: It would be great to have a discussion with others who have read the thread and are following the PBS documentary.

Lilienthal wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sphere of influence = ego.

Sphere of influence = power & money

Correct

Lilienthal wrote:

They should get the best that's available right now - which would be the F35 - and then start a joint European program for the next generation, 20 years down the road.

But the attitude behind "get the best that's available" on its own, would lead them into the hands of the military industrial complex and make the German nation a militaristic problem. Germany has to assess what its military needs actually are, and obviously the only possible real threat is Russia, hence the subject the MilAv thread came up against was how should Germany assess that threat. Which IMO leads directly to a need to understand Russia, which is political and cannot be discussed there.

salttee wrote:

Germany has to assess what its military needs actually are, and obviously the only possible real threat is Russia, ........

Accepting this as a given, would the best course be for Germany (and other European countries) to each have their own air force, or should they build a single, unified, "defense of Europe" air power?

I'm just guessing that several nations, each going their own way, will waste an awful lot of money.

WIederling wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Fake stories were posted on social media and right wing sources like 4Chan and Infowars and Breitbart and Fox just went with it.

Fake news in the US media scape is nothing new.

Actually you've set yourself a worthy task to find something that is down to earth true non leveraged information.

And here is the problem:

When people are told the source they cite is biased or fake, especially when it is a right wing source, they deny it is fake.

Yes, I know that "both sides do it" but, how many biased and fake sites from the left insist they are news? MSNBC? No. They do not keep insisting they are news. Democracy Now? No. They do not keep insisting they are news. SiriusXM Progress? No. They do not keep insisting they are news. So we need to just stop with the "well, since both sides do it, I can keep believing biased sources" claim.

BobPatterson wrote:

salttee wrote:

Germany has to assess what its military needs actually are, and obviously the only possible real threat is Russia, ........

Accepting this as a given, would the best course be for Germany (and other European countries) to each have their own air force, or should they build a single, unified, "defense of Europe" air power?
I'm just guessing that several nations, each going their own way, will waste an awful lot of money.

The Europeans have a unified defense called NATO and Germany's Tornados are assigned a role in that unified defense, so it is up to Germany to decide what the replacement for them shall be.

You should understand that there are more than a few Germans who believe that Russia is not a threat to them (for various reasons); thus it is a politically charged subject. I see this quandary as an opportunity to assess the threat Putin's Russia presents Europe. I believe that the European viewpoint is different from the American viewpoint.

BobPatterson wrote:

I'm just guessing that several nations, each going their own way, will waste an awful lot of money.

Twentytwo European countries signed a treaty just a few days ago to consolidate military logistics and purchasing.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1176664 ... werking-eu
https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/ ... -europe_en

The second link in particular shows the duplication of efforts made in Europe, comparing for a few capabilities the number of European systems versus the equivalent systems used in the USA. To give but one example: the USA has 550 aerial tankers of 4 different types; Europe has 42 tankers of 12 different types!

Of course it remains to be seen if these good intentions survive the harsh economic and political realities. For example, almost every European maritime country has its own indigenous frigate design made within their own borders. It does not seem likely that any of them will be willing to give up this capability. Even though most European politicians appear to be ambivalent to their military capabilities, they certainly care about the jobs that come from designing and building warships.

We might end up with another NBMR-1 competition. This was 1953 competition that should have led to a standardized light fighter-bomber for NATO. The Fiat G.91 won this competition, but only Italy, Portugal and Germany bought it. The other countries went for the Dassault Etendard, Hawker Hunter and Republic F-84. Italy had already bought the G-91 even before the final selection for the NBMR-1 project was made! So truthfully, only two countries actually lived up to the NBMR-1 project.

petertenthije wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I'm just guessing that several nations, each going their own way, will waste an awful lot of money.

Twentytwo European countries signed a treaty just a few days ago to consolidate military logistics and purchasing.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1176664 ... werking-eu
https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/ ... -europe_en

The second link in particular shows the duplication of efforts made in Europe, comparing for a few capabilities the number of European systems versus the equivalent systems used in the USA. To give but one example: the USA has 550 aerial tankers of 4 different types; Europe has 42 tankers of 12 different types!

Thank you for posting this.

Your second link provided a wealth of information as to the range of problems that exist and some of the possible remedies of them.

I'm not sure if I understood properly (after translation) a point in the first article, that there is a problem in interoperability of communications equipment? Such as radios of different countries not "working together"?

salttee wrote:

But the attitude behind "get the best that's available" on its own, would lead them into the hands of the military industrial complex and make the German nation a militaristic problem. Germany has to assess what its military needs actually are, and obviously the only possible real threat is Russia, hence the subject the MilAv thread came up against was how should Germany assess that threat. Which IMO leads directly to a need to understand Russia, which is political and cannot be discussed there.

I don’t think we can narrow down Russia as the only threat. Pre 9/11 I doubt few would have suggested that NATO would be in conflict in Afghanistan for 10+ years. While Afghanistan is clearly not a near peer adversary some possible other conflict situations might be
- Conflict in the South China Sea. Germany would almost certainly not be involved but a conflict in that area could easily get out of control and push out to other locations given the global trade implications.
- Middle Eastern conflict. Quite possible for the developed world to condemn and move to action against one or several states in this area due to ethnic cleansing, use of chemical weapons etc.
- The Balkans. Further Russian expansion into the Balkans or continued internal issues there could easily draw in regional powers such as Germany.

If committed German Armed forces could come into contact with top line military equipment from numerous countries.

In the context of global affairs, both Russia and China are very keen to increase exports of weapons and have demonstrated a desire to trade weapons, and military support, for long term base access. This places more advanced weapons, and military forces equipped and trained to use them, in potential conflict zones.

The additional question around German fighter acquisition may come down to NATO. If NATO, which to be clear is a military alliance, has a future then European members almost certainly need to lift their funding as at the moment only 6 members meet the 2% spending goals and few seem inclined to increase spending to that level.

In the context of cost, an F-35 acquisition would likely be the most cost effective means to obtain a capability that would otherwise cost Germany two, three or even four times as much to develop and then acquire. If Germany does not want to increase defence spending then perhaps an F-35 acquisition is the means to meet NATO commitments, continue NATO nuclear sharing, maintain a capable platform and demonstrate that Germany is at least interested and willing to continue its NATO commitments.
Germany could continue NATO commitments without acquiring the F-35 or another US aircraft if they give up Nuclear sharing with a purchase of additional Eurofighters or another platform or just try to soldier on with the Tornado. Long term Tornado use just doesn’t seem to be viable though given they will shortly be the sole operator.

The political side is the US political interest and angst from Europe to Trump. Whether you like Trump or not it appears that most Europeans on airliners are not fans… In defence of trump it appears that he has toed a harder line than Obama on foreign policy and most consensus pre the 2016 US election was that Hillary would have been similarly hawkish.
What we can point to is a high likelihood that Trump will not be re-elected in 2020, if he even decides to run or his party allow him to progress through the primary process. Challenging a sitting President is perfectly possible and has occurred a number of times in the last 30 years. Given the lack of progress he has made on his domestic agenda I think it is probable he will exit office and not look for re-election.

How this impacts Europe and German Military acquisition, the message is don’t throw years of NATO security cooperation out because of the perception of one bad apple.

Ozair wrote:

I don’t think we can narrow down Russia as the only threat. Pre 9/11 I doubt few would have suggested that NATO would be in conflict in Afghanistan for 10+ years. While Afghanistan is clearly not a near peer adversary some possible other conflict situations might be
- Conflict in the South China Sea. Germany would almost certainly not be involved but a conflict in that area could easily get out of control and push out to other locations given the global trade implications.
- Middle Eastern conflict. Quite possible for the developed world to condemn and move to action against one or several states in this area due to ethnic cleansing, use of chemical weapons etc.
- The Balkans. Further Russian expansion into the Balkans or continued internal issues there could easily draw in regional powers such as Germany.

If committed German Armed forces could come into contact with top line military equipment from numerous countries.

In the context of global affairs, both Russia and China are very keen to increase exports of weapons and have demonstrated a desire to trade weapons, and military support, for long term base access. This places more advanced weapons, and military forces equipped and trained to use them, in potential conflict zones.

I agree, at least about the Balkans, there is possible danger there, but that would only come from Russian mechanization's. The MilAv forum covered the hardware aspects well enough to present the fact that the real decision revolves around whether to equip the Luftwaffe with stealth capability within the next 25 - 30 years or not.

I am left with the idea that many people in Europe think that the scenario of Russia invading central Europe is preposterous, it is never going to happen. If this is true, then why does Germany need anything beyond the Eurofighter and a fourth gen bomb truck, if that? I believe there were people making that case in the other thread. I thought they would show up here and make their case but so far they are no-shows.

There are other scenarios than a Russian invasion to prepare for, be it the Balkans or Ukraine or Poland; would Europe go to war over the Baltic? Putin does not have the status quo in his plans, he is going to continue to push anywhere he sees a weakness. If someone were to ask "what does he want"? I would answer "all he can get". Russia is not a military threat to Europe currently, simply because Putin's military is just a shadow of what it would need to be to confront the west. I think things should stay that way.

Ozair wrote:

The additional question around German fighter acquisition may come down to NATO. If NATO, which to be clear is a military alliance, has a future then European members almost certainly need to lift their funding as at the moment only 6 members meet the 2% spending goals and few seem inclined to increase spending to that level.

I think that's because the mission is poorly defined or unexplained, maybe undecided upon is a better way to state it. I think Europe needs to give some thought to how it would be to deal with a Putin who has the upper hand.

Ozair wrote:

The political side is the US political interest and angst from Europe to Trump. Whether you like Trump or not it appears that most Europeans on airliners are not fans… In defence of trump it appears that he has toed a harder line than Obama on foreign policy and most consensus pre the 2016 US election was that Hillary would have been similarly hawkish.
What we can point to is a high likelihood that Trump will not be re-elected in 2020, if he even decides to run or his party allow him to progress through the primary process. Challenging a sitting President is perfectly possible and has occurred a number of times in the last 30 years. Given the lack of progress he has made on his domestic agenda I think it is probable he will exit office and not look for re-election.

How this impacts Europe and German Military acquisition, the message is don’t throw years of NATO security cooperation out because of the perception of one bad apple.

Yea, Trump's sales pitch is exactly the same as that of a greedy landlord wanting to raise the rent. There are better ways to sell full funding of the NATO mission IMO. Hopefully he will be gone and forgotten about soon enough.

salttee wrote:

I agree, at least about the Balkans, there is possible danger there, but that would only come from Russian mechanization's.

Here we have an opportunity to review the recently released Russian Military Power document by the US Defence Intelligence Agency available here, http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents ... 144235-937

Order of battle for fighter/multi-role and attack is approx. 1000 jets with an additional 140 bombers. The key will always be the proficiency and capability of all the units present but Russian is moving in the right direction. Still plenty of ground forces while the Russian Navy is not in a healthy state.

salttee wrote:

The MilAv forum covered the hardware aspects well enough to present the fact that the real decision revolves around whether to equip the Luftwaffe with stealth capability within the next 25 - 30 years or not.

That argument was lost twenty six years ago when stealth was validated over Baghdad.

salttee wrote:

There are other scenarios than a Russian invasion to prepare for, be it the Balkans or Ukraine or Poland; would Europe go to war over the Baltic? Putin does not have the status quo in his plans, he is going to continue to push anywhere he sees a weakness. If someone were to ask "what does he want"? I would answer "all he can get". Russia is not a military threat to Europe currently, simply because Putin's military is just a shadow of what it would need to be to confront the west. I think things should stay that way.

Agree and I think the doco you pointed to initially provides sufficient evidence that the best way to prevent Putin from moving outwards is containment.

salttee wrote:

I think that's because the mission is poorly defined or unexplained, maybe undecided upon is a better way to state it. I think Europe needs to give some thought to how it would be to deal with a Putin who has the upper hand.

Will be interesting to know what it would take for Europe to see Putin as an adversary, arguably in the same way Putin sees them. Future NATO also depends on how isolationist the US will become politically in the next 5-10 years but it would be a shame to see the organisation crumble due to lack of cohesion.

salttee wrote:

Yea, Trump's sales pitch is exactly the same as that of a greedy landlord wanting to raise the rent. There are better ways to sell full funding of the NATO mission IMO. Hopefully he will be gone and forgotten about soon enough.

I can’t see a way forward for increased NATO funding from US pushing. It didn’t work with Bush, Obama and now Trump. That increase has to come from within European NATO countries and that isn’t looking likely to happen anytime soon.

Russia builds its military on the incomes of Oil and Gas.

What really matters for living standards of Russias general public and EU needs of defense is the market of Oil and Gas.

For many years Germany and the rest of EU tried to make the living standards of the Russian general public improving by importing a lot of Oil and Gas from Russia.

Now something has changed. EU27 will start its shift to Eco friendly Electrical power and transport system.

In 2030-2050 this will probably mean that price of Oil and Gas go down while oil producers need to fight over a shrinking market.

How will this affect Russia? Its military, its people? What shall it export and to whom?

olle wrote:

Russia builds its military on the incomes of Oil and Gas.

What really matters for living standards of Russias general public and EU needs of defense is the market of Oil and Gas.

For many years Germany and the rest of EU tried to make the living standards of the Russian general public improving by importing a lot of Oil and Gas from Russia.

Now something has changed. EU27 will start its shift to Eco friendly Electrical power and transport system.

In 2030-2050 this will probably mean that price of Oil and Gas go down while oil producers need to fight over a shrinking market.

How will this affect Russia? Its military, its people? What shall it export and to whom?

plus the declining Russian population.

Dutchy wrote:

plus the declining Russian population.

They've all moved to Seattle.

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

Russia builds its military on the incomes of Oil and Gas.

What really matters for living standards of Russias general public and EU needs of defense is the market of Oil and Gas.

For many years Germany and the rest of EU tried to make the living standards of the Russian general public improving by importing a lot of Oil and Gas from Russia.

Now something has changed. EU27 will start its shift to Eco friendly Electrical power and transport system.

In 2030-2050 this will probably mean that price of Oil and Gas go down while oil producers need to fight over a shrinking market.

How will this affect Russia? Its military, its people? What shall it export and to whom?

plus the declining Russian population.

What declining population?

Try getting Google to help you out if you have problems getting simple facts right.

https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow= ... H8MSRIEQnA

olle wrote:

Russia builds its military on the incomes of Oil and Gas.

What really matters for living standards of Russias general public and EU needs of defense is the market of Oil and Gas.
..........
How will this affect Russia? Its military, its people? What shall it export and to whom?

Well we are pretty good at exporting military goods as well. A large portion of arms exports actually fund the Military R&D

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

Russia builds its military on the incomes of Oil and Gas.

What really matters for living standards of Russias general public and EU needs of defense is the market of Oil and Gas.

For many years Germany and the rest of EU tried to make the living standards of the Russian general public improving by importing a lot of Oil and Gas from Russia.

Now something has changed. EU27 will start its shift to Eco friendly Electrical power and transport system.

In 2030-2050 this will probably mean that price of Oil and Gas go down while oil producers need to fight over a shrinking market.

How will this affect Russia? Its military, its people? What shall it export and to whom?

plus the declining Russian population.

What declining population?

Try getting Google to help you out if you have problems getting simple facts right.

https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow= ... H8MSRIEQnA

Thank you for a new fact I have learned because of you, since 2013 not a decline in the population, good for Russia. Although the demographic isn't really favorable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... -01-01.png

Some commentary on the future of NATO and Russian relations can be found here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nato-must-stop-growing-if-itwants-tosurvive-bh230sgdb

You need an account to read but the gist of the article is that
- NATO at 29 members is approaching bursting point and any future expansion should be halted
- Sanctions against Russia should continue and no recognition of Crimea should occur
- Resist attempts by Putin to drive a wedge between the EU and the US
- How Turkey moves forward is a big issue as it appears to draw closer to Russia including what military equipment it purchases (such as a possible S-400 acquisition)
- Some redefinition of purpose needs to occur

tu204 wrote:

Will be interesting to see if this documentary actually gets to the underlying cause of the conflict between Russia and the west.

Do you have any comment on the Frontline documentary?

WADA says Russia still 'non-compliant' with anti-doping code


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport ... SKBN1DG0GA

Ozair wrote:

Some commentary on the future of NATO and Russian relations can be found here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nato-must-stop-growing-if-itwants-tosurvive-bh230sgdb

You need an account to read but the gist of the article is that
- NATO at 29 members is approaching bursting point and any future expansion should be halted
- Sanctions against Russia should continue and no recognition of Crimea should occur
- Resist attempts by Putin to drive a wedge between the EU and the US
- How Turkey moves forward is a big issue as it appears to draw closer to Russia including what military equipment it purchases (such as a possible S-400 acquisition)
- Some redefinition of purpose needs to occur

Nice article, with some very clear recommendations to deal with the Putin and Erdogan problems. Erdogan should be left the choice, leave NATO or become a loyal ally (which means something for his Middle East policies, Russian policies, and internal policies).
Putin should be dealt with a guarantee not to expand towards the east, anymore, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, and Finland should be fine, highly integrated into the political world as it is. Deal with the disrupter in chief in the digital world and/or in the real world to put even more harsh sanctions. We cannot leave Russia to disrupt its neighbors and disrupt western societies with all this fake news in social media and thus influencing our elections.

Yet another example of Putin's disinformation machine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41991012

LMP737 wrote:

Yet another example of Putin's disinformation machine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41991012

Yup, Putin's Russia can't be trusted, we have to be vigilant on this, because we can trust our quality media and that isn't the same as the Russian crap which has been posted here.

Dutchy wrote:

Yup, Putin's Russia can't be trusted, we have to be vigilant on this, because we can trust our quality media and that isn't the same as the Russian crap which has been posted here.

As someone once said a lie will be half way around the world while the truth is still putting on it's shoes. That's the problem with this sort of thing. There will be people who see that sort of misinformation and believe it and never hear the correction. And propagandists know this.

LMP737 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yup, Putin's Russia can't be trusted, we have to be vigilant on this, because we can trust our quality media and that isn't the same as the Russian crap which has been posted here.

As someone once said a lie will be half way around the world while the truth is still putting on it's shoes. That's the problem with this sort of thing. There will be people who see that sort of misinformation and believe it and never hear the correction. And propagandists know this.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Attributed to Goebbels

If the Europeans do not see a need to spend on their own collective defense than perhaps the idea of NATO itself has run its course? Perhaps Germany should simply quit NATO since they have nothing to fear from Russia. They could then apply their 1.7% or whatever percentage of GDP they are actually spending toward NATO on other programs. Perhaps more assistance for their immigrant populations?

Im not being facetious here. It does seem that quite a few Europeans are tired of the status quo and tired of their alliances and treaties with the U.S. Many of us in the U.S. are tired of the burden and tired of the constant complaining by our European allies. Maybe those relationships have simply run their course and the time has come for all of us to go our own ways.

Perhaps Germany should go ahead and test drive some Russian military hardware? That would certainly insure no issues of interoperabiity in any future military partnerships with the East.

Flaps, don't know where you got this analysis from, but it sounds a bit strange.
1. EU cooperation on defense: http://www.businessinsider.com/eu-count ... &r=US&IR=T
2. There is no money spend towards NATO, the 2% norm will be met in a few years, as agreed up on.
3. What has the immigrant population got to do with anything?
4. You are being facetious, right?
5. Europeans tired of the status quo? And could you define the status quo? Although I must admit, 70 years living in a war-free zone is a bit boring.
6. Don't think there are many in western Europe which want to quite NATO, perhaps you have some numbers to back up you claim?
7. US? Burden? Tired of the constant complaining by our European allies? What do you mean?
8. Let relationship run their course? You mean end them, right? These go back many centuries.........
9. Germany Russian hardware? Why would you suggest Russian hardware and not EU hardware?

With post like these you could apply for a job at troll headquarters in St. Petersburg. You pointed all the things out to try to divide countries and alliances. Not meant being facetious here, but there are a lot of innuendos in there, that's why i suggested it as a career choice.

Flaps wrote:

If the Europeans do not see a need to spend on their own collective defense than perhaps the idea of NATO itself has run its course? Perhaps Germany should simply quit NATO since they have nothing to fear from Russia. They could then apply their 1.7% or whatever percentage of GDP they are actually spending toward NATO on other programs. Perhaps more assistance for their immigrant populations?

Im not being facetious here. It does seem that quite a few Europeans are tired of the status quo and tired of their alliances and treaties with the U.S. Many of us in the U.S. are tired of the burden and tired of the constant complaining by our European allies. Maybe those relationships have simply run their course and the time has come for all of us to go our own ways.

Perhaps Germany should go ahead and test drive some Russian military hardware? That would certainly insure no issues of interoperabiity in any future military partnerships with the East.

If you're going to do that, won't you need some kind of a pact to delineate where the Russian sphere of influence begins and the new Germany's frontier ends?

What is the percentage of Germans who you think see things the same way you do?

Flaps wrote:

Perhaps Germany should go ahead and test drive some Russian military hardware? That would certainly insure no issues of interoperabiity in any future military partnerships with the East.

Been there, done that.

Was a wakeup call after reunification at least for some stuff.
For other "bad bad rusky" tales it was a massive deflator.
( never making its way across the Atlantic though.)

What strongly changed perceptions about some so called friends was
the opening of archives on the Soviet side bringing some light to
those act of senseless Soviet aggression highlighted in the press here in
earlier years.

salttee wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Will be interesting to see if this documentary actually gets to the underlying cause of the conflict between Russia and the west.

Do you have any comment on the Frontline documentary?

Sorry, was busy.

Yes, I'll try to be brief:

In general it wasn't bad, the facts were more or less correct but the conclusions made based on those facts was pretty off.

Correct in that the Russian administration got tired of foreign (mainly U.S.) meddling in Russian affairs with statements and sponsoring NGO's. However I see a key point was when Khodorkovsky was rightfully arrested in 2003 as the point that Russia had enough, but this wasn't mentioned in the documentary. After that continued meddling was met small with reactions on our part and shit went downhill when Georgia launched an attack on what was then their own territory of South Ossetia, which under Russian-Georgian agreement was under the protection of Russian Peacekeeping Forces, many of whom were killed.
That is when shit went downhill in relations, not the U.S. and E.U. sponsored revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine or the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Look at the facts and analyse them - there was no Russian reaction beyond statements being made in reaction to all of that.

Then we had direct US interference after the 2010 elections after which the government basically copied the US law on Foreign Agents mandating all NGOs that recieve foreign funds to register as foreign agents. Something that should have been done a decade ago. by the way I loved the hissy fit reaction from the west for this. A law which pretty much copies one from the States drew so much criticism. Nice double standards there.

Then we had Libya, where I have no clue why our administration believed the bullshit the U.S. and EU were saying about a simple no-fly zone. What came of it was combat support for the militants, and now Libya went from being one of the most developed and safest countries in Africa to becoming a fucking wreck.
That is what the Russian administration and Putin do not want - the shitdisturbing west causing destruction and destabilization anywhere they go which then breeds Islamic militants which then causes us problems near our borders and in our country (Russia has a significant Muslim population). And of course Russia and Russian companies had some pretty big business ties with Libya which went to shit after the country went to shit.

The conclusion that the documentary made based on their facts is that Putin is shit scared of protests and that is why the Russian administration is doing what it's doing. That is dead wrong. Putin has nothing to be afraid of here with an approval rating of over 80%. However if you watch his interviews, listen to his appearances you will see that something he values is stability, thus the reaction towards western-sponsored interference. I'll add that this interference in every single scenario left the place worst off than it was before, usually in ruins.

As far as Russian interference into U.S. elections go - awesome. I see absolutely nothing wrong with interfering in the internal affairs of the one country in the World that has interfered at one time or another in the internal affairs of pretty much every other country in the World.
Hats off to whoever planned that one and pulled it off.

tu204 wrote:

That is what the Russian administration and Putin do not want - the shitdisturbing west causing destruction and destabilization anywhere they go which then breeds Islamic militants which then causes us problems near our borders and in our country (Russia has a significant Muslim population).

Why do you think Chechens seem to turn up in every corner of the globe? Places like Grozny and Katyr Yurt ring a bell? I'm sure you'll blame it on the west though. Now that Russia is fully involved in Syria they are not neck deep in it so welcome to the club.

tu204 wrote:

As far as Russian interference into U.S. elections go - awesome. I see absolutely nothing wrong with interfering in the internal affairs of the one country in the World that has interfered at one time or another in the internal affairs of pretty much every other country in the World.
Hats off to whoever planned that one and pulled it off

And it's worked out so well for Putin and his gang. Congress has basically tied Trumps hands when it comes to sanctions. More worrisome for little Jimmy Putin is the situation in North Korea. Answer this one for me, are the chances for war more or less likely since Trump took office? If it were to break out North Koreans are not going to come flooding across the border into the US. They'll start crossing into Russia.

Whether Khodorkovsky was rightfully arrested or not depends on why he was arrested; if he was arrested for corruption then why was he the only oligarch arrested? It looks like the corruption was not the reason for his arrest though, it appears that he was arrested for not falling in line with Putin.

I don't think Libya has much to do with Russia's problems with the west. Russia has always made itself the odd man out. But the subject of the Caucasus does touch on something that some of us in the west think is important. If Putin would blow up an apartment building in Moscow to stir up nationalism and war frenzy, is there anything that would be out of bounds for him?

You do have one point though, there is a certain karmic justice in having US elections meddled with, but I don't think you're going to be happy with the blowback that's going to come from the 2016 elections. Donald Trump's name and Russia will now be bound together in the American mind. If you think that's going to work out to your benefit in the future, you're in for a surprise. And that's an association that isn't likely to go away in your lifetime.

Lol, Tu204, you do an excellent job for Russia in defending the indefensible. Although quite a bizarre take on things, including the way you describe Putin.