Russian Military Strength, Perception and Reality

[Michael K.]

A typical estimate of Russian military strength can be found at:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia

And such estimates compared with American firepower seem paltry and insignificant, as in the following excerpt from:

http://www.dailypaul.com/108801/us-china-russian-military-strength-compared

US, China & Russian Military Strength Compared
Submitted by Ralph Waldo on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 14:23

There seems to be a lot of confusion about how US military strength compares to that of China and Russia. Here are a few of the main categories from 2009 as well as a reference for more info.

Military Defense Spending and Budgets
USA - $515,400,000,000
China - $59,000,000,000
Russia - $43,200,000,000

Aerial-Based Weapons
USA - 18,169
China - 1,900
Russia - 3,888

Navy Ships
USA - 1559
China - 760
Russia - 526

Aircraft Carriers
USA - 12
China - 1
Russia - 1

Destroyers
USA - 50
China - 21
Russia - 15

In addition one must consider that this difference in military budgets has been going on since the USSR collapsed almost 20 years ago. Plus the degree of sophistication of the technology is drastically different as well. ie. All tanks are not created equal! (These numbers do not include atomic weapons).

So, there you have it!  No worries, right?  Wrong.

According to multiple credible sources, official estimates of Russian strength are intentionally misrepresented to hide the real capabilities of the former Soviet Union:

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/threats.html

THE PHONY DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION

This last great ruse by Russia was a carefully planned gesture, not unlike previous attempts by Lenin and Stalin to put on a more human face in order to secure needed technology transfers and monetary assistance from the West. The latest and most sophisticated version of the masquerade will culminate in Russia's long anticipated attack on the West. Soviet defector Anatoly Golitsyn, in 1984, warned the CIA and the world about this ruse in his book, "New Lies For Old," but it was given little publicity, and the author was roundly discredited by our own government. Golitsyn, not yet savvy about the high level treason that had a grip upon the US government and the establishment media, could not figure out why no one was interested in his warning. Not only were Western intelligence agencies and the press not interested in Golitsyn's warning, they were about to join in the propaganda promoting this deception in order to make sure Western observers would believe it.

The Berlin Wall did, in fact, come down in 1989 and the Soviet armies did leave Europe in 1990, but the freedom movement and the overthrow of Communist regimes by "reformers" were not as spontaneous as they were made to appear. Anyone close to the action could see huge holes in the story--holes that a scrutinizing press corps should easily have perceived, but chose not to. Uncharacteristically, the freedom movement among university students in Leipzig had suddenly begun to flourish, uninhibited by the Stazi, deep within the East German police state. No Western journalist dared utter the obvious question: why were students who had not dared to demonstrate the week before, suddenly free to do so without reprisal? Orders had obviously been given to the secret police to give the students a free hand. All student organizations had been infiltrated but no arrests of dissidents were made. Assurances were planted among student leaders that demonstrations would be tolerated. At least two heads of Eastern European states (Erik Honeker of the DDR and Nicolai Ceausescu of Romania) said prior to their deaths that the Russians had ordered them to step down (as if in response to public fervor), and to turn over power to specific groups that had quickly put on the mask of "reformers," but that were still Soviet controlled. Honeker obeyed and was allowed to live, while Ceausescu refused and was killed by his own secret police. Romanians weren't fooled by the sudden change in leadership in Romania; most knew the new "anti-Communist" leaders were still part of the old guard...

FEIGNING WEAKNESS TO HIDE STRENGTH

As for military weakness, only the manpower side of Russian military was allowed to collapse. The Russians purposely failed to pay troops or to maintain normal living standards within the ranks, leading to bad feelings and discontent. However, Russian production and development of high tech conventional military equipment has been ongoing. Huge stockpiles of tanks and mobile artillery were simply taken out of current inventory and stockpiled. They remain dispersed in depots beyond the Ural Mountains as part of the Conventional Forces Treaty signed with the US and NATO. This neat little treaty allowed the Russians to match US reduction in forces without actually destroying equipment--the Russians only had to put their tanks "out of reach." In fact, the Russians brought back some of that inventory during the Chechen conflict, and the US let them get away with it without so much as an official protest. Additionally, although many of the rank-and-file soldiers have left the military, the Russians did not decommission their huge corps of officers and NCOs. Thus, Russia maintains a suspiciously top-heavy military officer and NCO corps allowing it to refill the ranks of enlisted soldiers in a matter of months should war break out.

REAL DISARMAMENT?

What about Russia's highly touted disarmament of nuclear forces? This, too, is a grand deception, aided and abetted by US arms controllers. The older, out-dated aspects of the Russian military complex are on display to give the appearance of disarmament. Much of that has been dismantled at US taxpayer expense. US public television and the Clinton Pentagon joined forces to promote the image of Russian nuclear weakness with a highly doctored presentation entitled Missiliers, about the crumbling Soviet arsenal. A naive US General Habiger of US Strategic Command lent his credentials to the widely publicized TV documentary, which supposedly showed an inside view of the old and decrepit Soviet-era nuclear bunkers. It fact, they were too old and too decrepit to be credible. US missiliers who saw the documentary refused to believe those facilities were operational. With the exception of one limited view of the new SS-27 missile launcher, the US has never been allowed to see Russian's modern arsenal of weapons. Many of the older SS-18 ICBMs were dismantled in the 1990s with US taxpayer funds. The warheads, however, were not dismantled, but were given back to the Russians for recycling into their new missiles. Even the recently signed Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions is a fraud. Less than a year after it was signed, with great fanfare, Russia announced it would not dismantle hundreds of its remaining SS-18s and other missiles until mid next decade. Not only did the US not protest, but our own nation continued its part of the agreement, unilaterally-our most powerful missiles, the MX Peacekeeper, will be completely dismantled by the end of 2004. The Russians are clearly implementing Sun Tzu's classic war doctrine of "feigning weakness" prior to a strike.

ONGOING WEAPONS DEPLOYMENT

The top secret Russian military-industrial complex is in full production, but it is now quite separated from the normal, visible economy. Many suspect that Western aid and loans are almost exclusively funneled into these hidden portions of the Russian economy. This sustains the need for continual funding from the West to support the deprived civilian economy in Russia. However, despite feigning weakness, the Russians are continuing to build tremendous new nuclear/biological and chemical weapons systems--all with the assistance of US technology transfers.

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union was seen deploying biological warheads for their multiple-warhead SS-18 ICBMs. As late as the early 1990s, after the signing of agreements pledging to destroy all biological and chemical warfare stocks, bona fide defectors from Russia gave testimony of massive cheating on biological and chemical weapons programs. Again, no protest was forthcoming from the US and no sanctions were imposed.

Russia is now manufacturing, on average, one new SS-27 missiles (also called the Topol-M--a 6th generation ballistic missile with active maneuvering capability to evade interception) per month, and hiding them in underground facilities--replacing older SS-19 missiles located at the Sarakov missile based some 450 miles southeast of Moscow. The SS-27 can carry at least 3 medium weight warheads and up to 10 smaller nuclear warheads. It can also be armed with a single massive H-bomb developed by the Arzamas-16 site of the Russian Ministry of Atomics (MINATOM). According to Russian weapons engineers, the new Arzamas warhead has an explosive force equal to over half a million tons of TNT. The Washington Times has reported that, in 1995 and 1996, this weapons developer illegally obtained US-made IBM supercomputers exported with Clinton administration approval. The supercomputers were exported directly to the Russian weapons lab, using false commercial and non-military contracts. This was in direct violation of US law. IBM pled guilty to the illegal export and paid a $8.5 million fine for their illegal sale, but the damage was already done. Later evidence proved that the Clinton administration actually facilitated the sale and gave IBM assurances of protection. The Russians intend to build a total of 500 of these mobile missiles, each one capable of mounting the full range of nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. This is truly an ominous weapons system, and should be our main concern in terms of designing an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense. We built our last modern ICBM (the MX "Peacekeeper" missile) over 20 years ago, and we unilaterally dismantled them in 2003, inspite of the fact that the Russians reneged on their part of the Strategic Forces Reduction agreement.

The Russian ABM system is composed of hundreds of SA-5 and SA-10 anti-aircraft/anti-missile missiles.

Moscow not only has its nominal 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also several thousand other SAM interceptors, many of which have been upgraded with ABM capabilities. In total, Russia has 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 sites. The SA-10 is a totally new missile now from what it used to be and continues to be fitted with nuclear warheads (unlike our dumbed-down proposed ABM system that has no warhead at all). Russia has 18 huge battle-management radar installations located around the periphery of the country, as well as in space, to direct their ABM system. Upgrades of these radar sites as new construction of several more were carried out during the ABM treaty negotiations. US and NATO spy satellites detected these violations, but only one radar unit was halted. It was finished two years ago and the US failed to protest this violation of the ABM treaty. Yet Russia still demands that we abide by the treaty.

Further, the Russians are building huge underground nuclear bunkers and weapons production facilities in the Ural Mountains, clearly intended to function during a nuclear war. "Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world," said US Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md). "They have very large train tracks running in and out of it [actually 5 tracks wide], with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they [supposedly] don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people." Ken Timmerman, one of the best sources of information on the subject says, "The Russians have constructed two entire cities over the site, known as Beloretsk 15 & 16, which are closed to the public, each with 30,000 workers. No foreigner has ever set foot near the site. A US military attaché stationed in Moscow was turned back when he attempted to visit the region a few years ago..."

In public testimony before a House Armed Services Subcommittee last October, KGB defector Col. Oleg Gordievsky said the KGB had maintained a separate, top-secret organization, known as Directorate 15, to build and maintain a network of underground command bunkers for the Soviet leadership -- including the vast site beneath Yamantau Mountain. When pictures of this complex were published on the front page of the New York Times in 1996, the CIA was asked to respond. Keeping pace with the long standing secret government policy to protect Americans from any information that would point to a Russian threat, the CIA spokesman said the agency wasn't worried--the huge Russian facility was purely "defensive." How do they know that when they admit that no US official has ever visited the site?

In 1998, US Strategic Commander (STRATCOM) General Eugene Habiger, the same naive commander who took part in the NPR propaganda documentary Missiliers, called Yamantau "a very large complex -- we estimate that it has millions of square feet available for underground facilities. We don't have a clue as to what they're doing there." No clue, general? Not even one clue? People this stupid obviously get to be generals because they are predictable yes-men in a military determined to purge out any future George Pattons or Douglas MacArthurs. I noticed in Missiliers that Habiger never mentioned the Russian military's refusal to answer questions about Yamantau Mountain as he waxed eloquent about the deep camaraderie and trust he felt with his Russian military counterparts. If this is the best general we can find to head STRATCOM, the US is in mortal danger.

The Yamantau Mountain complex is not far from Russia's main nuclear weapons lab facility, Chelyabinsk-70. Honest military analysts suspect that Yamantau's huge 400-square-mile underground complex houses nuclear warhead and missile storage sites, launch control, and several full-blown nuclear weapons factories--all designed to continue production after a nuclear war begins. The US has no equivalent to such extensive protected production facilities. According to Ken Timmerman, the Russian government has provided no fewer than 12 separate and contradictory explanations for the site, none of which are believed to be credible.

Russia also has a massive national command and control system dispersed among three different hardened underground locations. Besides Yamantau Mountain, there is the Yavinsky Mountain underground complex and the Sherapovo bunker site, south of Moscow. Sherapovo is the primary command center for Russia's "civilian" leaders. The Kremlin is connected to Sherapovo and other bunkers by a secret subway line. Once at Sherapovo, they can conduct the war effort using a highly redundant communications system "allowing the leadership to send orders and receive reports through the wartime management structure," according to a 1988 Pentagon report.

RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC PLAN OF ATTACK

It is my considered opinion that the Russians do not want to begin their massive attack on the West with a conventional flow of armaments and troop build-up in Europe. These types of precursor movements would be easily detected by US and European reconnaissance satellites. Neither do the Russians want to destroy Europe if they don't have to. I believe that Russia is planning a massive preemptive nuclear strike on US and British military facilities sometime toward the end of this current decade--precisely because such a strike would decapitate Western military power within two days, with little loss to Russia, and instill fear in the rest of the world. By concentrating the initial attack on the US and Britain, the Russians believe they can turn to European leaders and intimidate them into submission without a fight. The Russians are optimistic they can count on Europe's leaders since many European heads of state are now aligned with the Socialist Internationale, a front for international Communism created during WWII by Moscow as a means of controlling Europe. Russian GRU defector Col. Stanislav Lunev's revelations about Russian military strategy and planning, including his claim that every Russian military exercise is based on the premise of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the US military, tend to corroborate my suspicions.

WHAT ABOUT TIMING?

I do not believe the intended strike is imminent. It is my estimate that the Russians won't be ready to strike until sometime after 2015 and probably no later than 2022, despite ongoing preparations for war. Here's why: Despite the continual stockpiling of core supplies and other evidence of war preparations referenced in the excellent and ongoing work of J R Nyquist, the Russians lack several elements that would ensure success, and they won't strike until everything is in place.

First, they desire to make sure that the US disarms as many of our nuclear missiles as possible. They have already succeeded in getting US leaders to complete the unilateral disarmament of the feared MX intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). These 50 blockbuster ICBMs were located in hardened silos surrounding the Four Corners area of Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and South Dakota have now all been dismantled. No comparable disarmament of the Russian Topol-M missiles is being required, despite Russian promises to dismantle all SS-18s. President Clinton's 1998 orders to the military (PDD-60) to absorb a first strike and not launch on warning still stands today, even though military planners think it is a mere theoretical "don't rely on Launch on Warning." Clinton told the military to be prepared to retaliate after a first strike, because no president since will give the order to launch until after we've absorbed the first strike--to ensure that the US begins the next war from a position of defeat. Dumbfounded (but compliant as always) the top military brass wanted to know, "retaliate with WHAT?" Good point! However, the Russians most likely are not counting on PDD-60. They suspect we won't abide by this suicidal order now that Clinton is out of office. Overall, the Russians are inherently suspicious of US disarmament. They think the US must be cheating just like they are. Criminal minds think alike.

Second, the US in currently engaged in a number of important transfers of military technology to Russia involving missiles, aircraft, communications, supercomputers and space technology. Boeing has, in the recent past, made strategic partnership agreements with Zvezda-Strella, Russia's premier weapons lab, for building the top secret US Joint Strike Fighter. No one talks about that piece of treason encouraged by Washington. NASA transferred sensitive space technology and money to Russia when Russia claimed they couldn't afford to complete their portion of the International Space Station. The US Navy sent the Russians technical upgrades to their anti-ship missile systems which are now being deployed in Russia and China and targeting US warships. Many major US military contractors are similarly engaged with technology transfers to Russia or China or both. I think Russia wants to make sure these high tech modifications reach initial deployment within their arsenals before they strike. While technology development is always ongoing, and the Russians can't wait forever, they must at least ensure numerical superiority and technical comparability to the US. The Russians have long ago accomplished the former and we are busy helping them achieve the latter. In contrast, the potential of deep recession/depression that may descend upon the US in the decade will certainly slow the deployment of many of our high-tech new weapons (except black budget weapons, which likely are not being developed to defend America).

Third, Russia will not strike until her people are sufficiently antagonistic to the West to form a wall of public opinion supportive of a nuclear first strike, initiating WWIII. US and NATO globalist leaders are helping Russia achieve this by establishing NATO as a force for aggression and intervention rather than defense. That was the real underlying reason why our globalist leaders fomented the war in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and eventually IRAN. The humanitarian excuse of opening Iraq to democracy was just a cover for other strategic intentions. It is also why the Clinton administration paid Harvard's leftist academics to sabotage "free-market" reforms in Russia. If the US government had been serious about facilitating Russian reforms, they would have hired the libertarian CATO Institute instead. Ten years ago, the Russian people admired America and longed to be like the West. There is now a deep sense of resentment among Russians for repeated humiliation in Europe, coupled with widespread bitterness and cynicism about economic freedom. The reforms are going nowhere and many Russians long for the return of the meager but stable flow of supplies they got under the stifling, but predictable, Soviet system. Russians are tired of seeing fellow Slavs and other allies (such as Iraq) pushed around by NATO in Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia. America is hated by many and commonly distrusted--for good reason. They long to see Russia return to her pre-Cold War glory as a world power. Putin, instead of being viewed as the ruthless second level Communist hatchet man that he is, is ascending to the status of national hero.

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has done even more to antagonize the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan. The torture, abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners, which came to light in 2004, has done more to dispel American pretenses of morality and democracy than anything to date. All of this is continuing to build antagonism toward America that will eventually erupt into a violent international backlash--and not by terrorism only.

Fourth, Russia needs to further secure its back door with China. Russia would not dare attack the West without assurances of Chinese assistance on the Eastern front. A new "non-aggression" pact (reminiscent of the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact that helped facilitate WWII) is in force between China and Russia. However, China is not sufficiently strong militarily to handle its side of the bargain. Thus, Russia is busy helping the Chinese to build up sufficient military forces, especially naval and missile forces, to conquer and control all of the Pacific Rim during the opening months of WWIII. But there is a downside to this strategy which Russia cannot dismiss lightly. Russia knows that China is a predator nation like itself, and will ultimately challenge Russian hegemony when strong enough to do so. Thus, Russia must strike the West when China is minimally armed but before China gets so strong as to present a direct threat to Russia. For this reason, the current military technological transfers from the US to China worry the Russians--as they should.

Fifth, the Russians and the Chinese are rabid about the potential threat a US anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system presents. This is not simply a cover, in my opinion. It is the foremost topic of heated discussions in every political forum the Russians or Chinese engage in, whether in public or in secret, with the US or with its allies. Clearly a viable ABM system threatens Russia's potential to pull off a successful nuclear first strike. Russia suspects that the US ABM system will consist of not a mere 100 interceptors, as claimed, but thousands instead. This ABM issue is a major key to understanding the Russian perception of timing. The US fixed base ABM system is still in the development stage, and only six interceptors have been installed as of 2005. So, we have a few token missiles in place, but they have never been tested fully, and serve a mostly symbolic purpose. The latest modifications of the Aegis shipboard ABM system is much more effective in allowing for flexible placement. If the Russian strike were imminent, they wouldn't be so worried about a future ABM system. Since they are concerned in the extreme, I can only presume that deployment of such a system in the latter half of this decade directly impinges upon their time of attack. I used to say the Russians would certainly intend to strike before the ABM system is deployed. That doesn't seem to be the case--perhaps it is because they know we have so few and that they have no explosive warheads. The system the US is installing is badly designed (lacking any warhead). I'm not sure the Russians really fear it--unless they suspect the US is arming it with a warhead, which is not happening. Land based Aegis style ABMs are now being planned for deployment in Europe and are clearly intended to target Russian missiles in their upward trajectory where they can be destroyed prior to disgorging their load of missile evading warheads and decoys. Precisely because such a system would be so effective, faster to reach deployment, and cheaper, it will meet with maximum environmental protests and resistance--especially from Moscow's lackeys in the "peace" movements of Europe.

US COVERING FOR THE RUSSIANS

The US intelligence community (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) has known all these facts for years and yet continues to actively cover for the Russians, on orders from the White House. At least, it appears that way to me. The US continues to play on the illusion that Russia and China are loyal partners in the "war on terror" despite evidence that Russia and China are still engaged in widespread proliferation of nuclear and other weapons technology via their client states like Pakistan and North Korea. The US uses Israel as a conduit for technology transfers to China as well.

No information about the coming Russian threat is allowed to reach the American people. Furthermore, the US has taken every opportunity to encourage Russia in its hostile intentions. For example, to reassure the Russians concerning the fearsome ABM issue, the Clinton administration had agreed, in exchange for scrapping the ABM treaty, to impose technical limitations on the speed of anti-missile interceptors (the "Demarcation Agreement") so that no US interceptor would be effective against a Soviet ICBM. But this is more smoke and mirrors. In fact, the US has already been operating on an even wider range of technical limits ever since the 1970s. Worse, the new proposed replacement treaty would include the same provisions under the guise of new strategic arms limitations. I will attempt to explain this apparently suicidal behavior on the part of the US in the section on Western globalist strategy.

China and Russia both share numerous inherent characteristics that lend themselves to becoming predator nations:

A large population base of poorly educated people deprived of much open contact with the West, which can be manipulated through propaganda and can form the basis of huge armies.

A long history of authoritarian leadership rather than government based upon principles of fundamental rights.

A discouraged and intimidated people used to being controlled and ordered about.

A certain brand of ruthlessness and insensitivity to conscience that tends to breed leaders and security forces capable of unspeakable horrors.

This is not to say that all Russians or Chinese share these general characteristics--quite the contrary. However, these characteristics predominate within these two societies more so than in societies that rarely become predators.

China clearly has its sights set on world hegemony. The attitude of oriental superiority over occidental bourgeoisie has long pervaded China and even predates Russian predatory tendencies. Realistic analysts who have long experience with both Russia and China know that neither will long be subservient to the other. Russia and China may attempt to use each other for short-term gain, but will eventually tangle for ultimate supremacy.

For the present, Russia and China are teaming up against the West in a new unilateral quest for arms. This is no surprise. The Russians have been arming China, off and on, since the Chinese Communists came to power under Chairman Mao. But now, the Chinese are playing both sides of the fence, East and West. Knowing that Russia is willing to supply it with plentiful quantities of second-rate equipment, China is looking toward the West for advanced American technology and funding in order to upgrade its Soviet and home-grown equipment. At present the US globalist inside at the Pentagon cannot get away with arming China directly, but both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent years have been successful at making it easy for Chinese spies to pierce the US curtain of protection against espionage. It began in the George Bush Sr. administration when the Chinese were given open access to key US defense plants like Hughes Aircraft, and reached tidal wave proportions during the Clinton era. US technology transfers continued unabated during the George W. Bush presidency. The Bush Commerce Department allowed and regularly approved special exceptions to rules as they apply to dual-use transfers to China. This has continued during the Obama administration.  

Another source for information concerning Russian capabilities and intentions is the witness of Russian defector to the West, Stanislav Lunev.  Listen to this in depth interview by Barry Farber, including discussion of a Russian seismic weapon which has been field tested resulting in the Armenian earthquake:

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/lunev_low.mp3

Furthermore, if the official estimate given above of Russia's annual defense budget, $43,200,000,000, was at one time actually accurate, it is no longer so:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0228/With-Russia-s-650-billion-rearmament-plan-the-bear-sharpens-its-teeth

Moscow

The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

Analysts say Russia, while already the world's fifth-largest military spender, needs strong conventional forces to reduce its overreliance on its aging Soviet-era nuclear missile deterrent. Valentin Rudenko, director of the independent Interfax-Military News Agency, says it could create "a whole new ballgame."

"For about two decades we've had no real modernization, at least not like what's being proposed now," he says. "Russia will finally have a modern, top-level armed forces that are capable of protecting the country."

IN PICTURES: World's Top 10 Military Spenders

Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin last week announced the unprecedented new outlays, which will see a massive re-equipping of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent as well as its conventional forces. The Defense Ministry today said the "modernization drive" will begin this year with the deployment of new generations of air defense and antimissile weapons by Russian ground forces.

The impressive shopping spree comes on the heels of a painful military reform that severely downsized Russia's conscript Army, eliminating 9 out of 10 Soviet-era units and cutting 200,000 officers. The goal now, experts say, is to equip Russia's new lean-and-mean, largely professional armed forces to face 21st-century threats. These are mainly considered to be regional conflicts such as the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian war, which highlighted military shortcomings.
Skepticism over spending

Much of the new spending will go toward revamping Russia's naval forces, which are slated to receive new submarines, 35 naval corvettes, 15 frigates, and 4 Mistral-type helicopter-transporting amphibious assault ships. Two of the $750 million Mistrals will be purchased from France, and two are to be constructed in Russian shipyards.

Some experts are deeply skeptical of the expenditures – especially the expensive purchase of Mistral helicopter carriers, which are designed to project power around the globe rather than fight the defensive and local wars that Russian military doctrine declares as the country's main priority.

"It's hard to see what our Navy needs these Mistral money pits for," says Viktor Baranets, a former defense ministry spokesman who's now military correspondent for the Moscow daily Komsomolskaya Pravda. He says they may be prestigious, "but they require a huge amount of protection. At any time, half the Russian Navy may be employed just escorting these ships around the world."

The new submarines will be designed to deploy a brand-new long-range nuclear missile, the Bulava, which has failed half of its flight tests so far. "Defense ministers can make promises, but no designer or engineer can promise that the Bulava will be operational in time," says Mr. Baranets.
Uncertainty over new stealth fighter

Experts point out that most of the new weaponry to be procured is actually based on old, Soviet-era designs, including the Mi-28 helicopter gunship, the Mi-26 transport helicopter, and the Sukhoi Su-35 multirole fighter plane.

"These are all designs from the late Soviet period, and not really new at all," says Alexander Golts, military expert with the online newsmagazine Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "The lack of fresh designs shows the underlying weakness of our military-industrial complex."

The only truly new weapons being rolled out, says Mr. Golts, are the trouble-plagued Bulava missile and the much-hyped "fifth-generation" fighter plane that Russia is reportedly developing with India.

"We don't know enough about this Russian fifth-generation fighter to tell whether it is the real thing" – a futuristic stealth fighter comparable to the US Air Force's F-22 and F-35 warplanes – "or if it's just a jumped-up version of something old," says Golts.

Critics say that despite the huge sums of money slated to be injected into the rearmament program, it is far short of the amounts needed to revive Russia's moribund military-industrial complex, which has lost the vast network of subcontractors that existed in Soviet times.

"This is not the first time the Kremlin has talked about military modernization," says Golts. "But all previous programs have failed."

Another aspect of the Russian military capability is the potential of space-based weapons systems, in particular the actual space laser weapon once built in prototype:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-explor ... -Wars.html

It sounds like something from a James Bond movie: a massive satellite, the largest ever launched, equipped with a powerful laser to take out the American anti-missile shield in advance of a Soviet first strike. It was real, though—or at least the plan was. In fact, when Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev walked out of the October 1986 summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, because President Ronald Reagan wouldn't abandon his Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, the Soviets were closer to fielding a space-based weapon than the United States was. Less than a year later, as the world continued to criticize Reagan for his "Star Wars" concept, the Soviet Union launched a test satellite for its own space-based laser system, which failed to reach orbit. Had it succeeded, the cold war might have taken a different turn.

The spacecraft was known as Polyus-Skif. "Polyus" is Russian for "pole," as in the north pole. "Skif" referred to the Scythians, an ancient tribe of warriors in central Asia—and the European equivalent of "barbarian."

Conclusion:  We have every reason to suspect that official Russian estimates of military strength have been intentionally and drastically understated as part of a continual program of treaty breaking, and weapons stockpiling in preparation for an eventual total war against the West.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Mike, but that is such bullshit, propaganda, also the information is old, 2009.

[Michael K.]

Dear bluejelly,

While I respect your right to differ, I am unsure about what you mean.  Which part do you refute?

Clearly the $650,000,000,000 rearmament program article is from 2011, and credible.   The 2009 "Daily Paul" article is dated, but it reflects exactly what militaryfirepower.com currently rates Russia as having, something I cross-checked before I submitted it.

Joel Skousen's article was updated in 2010, and while I can't accept everything he says on faith, I don't know which part is false, so if you actually know something which contradicts the truth of the following, please make it known, by all means:

1.)  Moscow not only has its nominal 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also several thousand other SAM interceptors, many of which have been upgraded with ABM capabilities. In total, Russia has 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 sites.

2.)  "Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world," said US Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md). "They have very large train tracks running in and out of it [actually 5 tracks wide], with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they [supposedly] don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people."

3.)  Huge stockpiles of tanks and mobile artillery were simply taken out of current inventory and stockpiled. They remain dispersed in depots beyond the Ural Mountains as part of the Conventional Forces Treaty signed with the US and NATO.

4.)  Additionally, although many of the rank-and-file soldiers have left the military, the Russians did not decommission their huge corps of officers and NCOs. Thus, Russia maintains a suspiciously top-heavy military officer and NCO corps allowing it to refill the ranks of enlisted soldiers in a matter of months should war break out.

Or perhaps you can reassure us that the Russian development of a space-based laser system never continued on in secret?

So, you have accused this article I wrote of being propaganda without a shred of evidence, but just vitriol.  That, my friend, is a very real type of propaganda which I need do nothing to prove.  

Perhaps you are irrationally reacting because you have swallowed the propaganda of the emergent, religio-conservative and Anti-Semitic Russia as you "Savior"?   I'm sure you will have your chance to know the truth of the whole matter before too long, but the cost may be higher than you are pleased to pay.