Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.
Very interesting, thanks.Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.
A lot of words to say very little. Putin is a gangster and his foreign policy is solely devoted to his own enrichment. This enrichment of himself and a few cronies has impoverished his country, therefore he needs foreign enemies to distract the people. And he makes plenty of them!Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.
Thanks for the link. I thought the article was a little over-wrought. Power only exists as it combats chaos indeed. Power exists to create and accumulate wealth I would have thought.Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.
I suppose there is a presumption of an end game in his strategy. What the article suggests is that the strategy is to avoid an end game, to just keep playing the game in perpetuity.A lot of words to say very little. Putin is a gangster and his foreign policy is solely devoted to his own enrichment. This enrichment of himself and a few cronies has impoverished his country, therefore he needs foreign enemies to distract the people. And he makes plenty of them!
He also needs to keep the price of oil and gas high. This requires leverage over Saudi and the Gulf states to "encourage" them to tighten supply. Hence Syria. Simple, really.
The Orwellian vision of perpetual war being used to justify more centralised power and a lack of democracy is, I think, closer to the mark. The more chaos, the more power can be centralised.Thanks for the link. I thought the article was a little over-wrought. Power only exists as it combats chaos indeed. Power exists to create and accumulate wealth I would have thought.
Muslims make up close to 20% of Russia's population (the 8.5% figure usually cited is incorrect because Chechnya and Ingushetia were at war when the last census was taken and so are not part of the total given). Islam has been in Russia since the very start of the religion ( a few decades after Mohamed died) and Islamic Intellectuals were encouraged by Catherine the Great. They are nearly all Sunni and most of them live around Moscow and St. Petersburg.As for Russia having no strategic vision in Syria, nonsense. Russia has a large potentially disaffected Sunni Muslim population in its southern regions.
Yep, but the bigger picture is to ensure there is no gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region.It has long seen allying with Sias further south as an ideal counterweight. Assad’s father was a student in Moscow decades ago.
Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation. There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.The title of that New Statesman piece is:- Is Putin Preparing for War?
1. His might couldn't defeat relatively few rough shod Afghanis even after 10 years of occupation. Russia beat over extended Nazis in Stalingrad and of course that major tank battle at Kursk. Russia would have no chance against a united EU + UK beckoned on by Poland and former Russian states. Putin's planes would have no problem sinking the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth II (a sitting duck), but other than that he'd be wasting his time and would lose more than he'd gain. I haven't even mentioned support from the USA.
2. The gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region are issues. Yes, but these have been issues for 100's of years.
3. The electric car will sort out most of the Middle East in due course. (Personally I can't wait for the day!).
4. Russia is self destructing slowly so no need for too much concern.
5. I'd be more afraid from the Rasputins than the Putins. I wonder how long more he'll be around.
Bring it on . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation. There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.
Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation. There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.
If the USA (who spend as much on their armed forces as the next 30 countries combined) are in the fight then we'd win a conventional war but without them and/or their equipment we'd lose.Bring it on . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.
Good point, Michaelm - Hit their pockets and they'll come begging.It seems to me that Russia is a mafia state and a regional nuisance. Things usually end badly for mafia bosses. How many nukes do you need as a deterrent (is thousands really that much better than hundreds, would tens of thousands be better again)? The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.
I hope you don't mean this.Bring it on . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.
The EU should he steadily weaning itself offIt seems to me that Russia is a mafia state and a regional nuisance. Things usually end badly for mafia bosses. How many nukes do you need as a deterrent (is thousands really that much better than hundreds, would tens of thousands be better again)? The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.
@Leper is old and will be dead soon and begrudges the young their future. It's a Cork thing.I hope you don't mean this.
There was also the air campaign against Germany and German industry by the US and UK.If the USA (who spend as much on their armed forces as the next 30 countries combined) are in the fight then we'd win a conventional war but without them and/or their equipment we'd lose.
Remember that the Soviets only beat the Germans with American hardware and technology. And it was the Soviets who beat them, D-Day was aa side show. More combatants were killed on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of the War combined. The Americans supplied around 16 million tons of equipment to the Russians. To put that in context they only supplied 22 million tons to their own forces in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Russian blood and American Steel won the war. Polish piolets in American planes won the Battle of Britain but that was an even smaller side show.
If anyone thinks that EU forces (plus the UK) could beat the Russians, with their history and combat experience, is in for a rude awakening.
Yes, that all mattered too but Russia did more heavy lifting than everyone else combined.There was also the air campaign against Germany and German industry by the US and UK.
This both significantly suppressed German industrial output and diverted it towards the air defence of Germany.
The Russians had to face far fewer tanks and planes and guns because of this.
That should also be considered with the ground forces tied up in France, Italy, Norway and lost in North Africa during the 'in the balance' years of 1941-1944.
Yes, as previously noted;The Soviet Union couldn't have done all that heavy lifting without huge assistance from the USA / UK. This included 12,000 tanks, 8000 other armoured vehicles, 20,000 fighter aircraft, over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 37,000 motorcycles, 2000 locomotives plus 10,000 cargo carriages. Plus millions of tyres, spare parts and mobile maintenance workshops with generators, welding equipment, machine tools and raw materials. And over 8000 radio, radar and sonar sets.
Then there was 15,000,000 pairs of boots, 1,500,000 blankets, 100,000 tons of cotton, five million tons of food and 3,000,000 tonnes of fuel including over 50% of all aviation fuel used by the Soviets during the war.
And, to wash it all down, 300,000 litres of alcohol!
In total, 17,500,000 tonnes of stuff, which compares well with the 22,000,000 tonnes the US delivered to Europe for use by their own forces.
All free gratis, no money ever changed hands, and at considerable cost in money and lives lost when convoys were attacked and ships torpedoed.
America gave the same level of support to the British. It was American planes that won the Battle of Britain and the best piolets during that battle were Polish. The British also ignored that.The Americans supplied around 16 million tons of equipment to the Russians. To put that in context they only supplied 22 million tons to their own forces in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Russian blood and American Steel won the war.
You'd think that might have bought a little gratitude but instead the Soviets publicly minimized and downplayed it while burnishing the myth of Soviet exceptionalism. Their sympathisers still do so.