Europeans: Is this a game changer?

I remember the arguments I had with certain members of this board on Europe's defense capabilities (:laugh4:), and it was said again and again that Russia was not significant threat. Do you consider this to be a game changer? Do you still think that Russia is no significant threat?

Eh, it was going to happen sooner or later.
As for the question: maybe, but not yet, its still going to take a few years, maybe a decade, to build 100 warships etc.

Russia has had several re armament plans ever since the end of Soviet Union. Non of which have fully materialized. You can plan on being the master of universe, but with GDP of Spain, that is hardly possible. If Russia wants to bancrupt herself with armaments programs, then they wil only be less of a threat. The fact is that currently Russia is doing lot of nice business with EU and vice versa, which benefits both parties. War would be bit bad for such business.

The article didn't portray it is a big threat...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"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."

...


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."

And looks like it's not like this hasn't been tried before either...

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if half the money is merely to pay people there actual wages and prevent stuff they already have from falling apart.

ten euro says half the money will never spent and the other will be badly spent.

Soone or later all this will be integrated into the European Defense Force that we're going to establish, so we can only benefit in the long run. ~;)

It means that Russia can be added to the long list of sad countries that give preference to the army over social considerations. One of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, but the oil revenue is diverted towards satisfying the wishes of sad little men and their love of all things military.


Not all is bad though. I'm sure a lot of Russian boys, and men, are reading about this with their trousers down their ankles. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Soone or later all this will be integrated into the European Defense Force that we're going to establish, so we can only benefit in the long run. ~;)

---

In the short run we are benefitting too, the orders are flooding in. They sell us oil, we sell them warships.

Then they can use these warships to threaten not to sell us oil. Which, of course, they won't do, because then they can't buy more warships. It is a sad world, ran by sad little men.

"No"

read you own article:

1. russia has been promising money for years
2. most new money is subject to massive fraud
3. russia's military remains under-trained and badly led
4. russia would struggle to deploy, support and sustain more than a battlegroup (~1500 men) out of theatre
5. russia has under-invested in design for twenty years now
6. russia is dependent on western countries for microprocessor and software microcode skills
7. russia is a demographic wreck
8. russia is a commercial development wreck
9. russia is only propped up by petro-chemical exports and nukes

and most importantly:

10. russia is set to remain a declining medium power, it isn't a threat now, and will be even less of a threat in forty years time.

does that help?

It would take more than $650 billion to make the Red Army viable again.

hmm, that was actually a good News. Since the upcoming WW3 won't be Westerns vs Russians, but more like Westerns vs China or Westerns vs Muslims, Russians will be your ally.

Well....

Russia was in a far, far worse condition in 1941. Hunger in the country, a shattered economy, an untrained and disorganized army lacking equipment, recovering from a massive defeat, a mad man executing all commanding officers with brains, etc etc. And they still managed to defeat one of the most effective armies the world has ever seen.

I don't think we should contemplate war with Russia any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well....

Russia was in a far, far worse condition in 1941. Hunger in the country, a shattered economy, an untrained and disorganized army lacking equipment, recovering from a massive defeat, a mad man executing all commanding officers with brains, etc etc. And they still managed to defeat one of the most effective armies the world has ever seen.

I don't think we should contemplate war with Russia any time soon.

---

And if they roll over a few smaller countries, the plunder and labour may just give them what they need to be a serious threat. War makes authoritarian countries rich and powerful (think: Ottoman Empire). All they need to do is use their nukes as a threat to small neighboring countries and they could get momentum to start rolling through other countries.

As Russia is a friend and a trading partner, that doesn't really matter much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

And if they roll over a few smaller countries, the plunder and labour may just give them what they need to be a serious threat. War makes authoritarian countries rich and powerful (think: Ottoman Empire). All they need to do is use their nukes as a threat to small neighboring countries and they could get momentum to start rolling through other countries.

---

This would merely strengthen Nato and European resolve to face them down, the whole thing would end with russia losing even more influence in the long run.

Russia's main and basically only aim is high gas and oil prices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

As Russia is a friend and a trading partner, that doesn't really matter much.

---

lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

This would merely strengthen Nato and European resolve to face them down, the whole thing would end with russia losing even more influence in the long run.

Russia's main and basically only aim is high gas and oil prices

---

lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?


lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.

---

And where was US? They trained Georgian army, but once Russians strolled in where were they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?


lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.

---

Once your past Poland your barely considered european to a Frenchman so I wouldnt get all worried about it Vuk if russias are threatening europe they mean the central european plain and specifically germany

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Not all is bad though. I'm sure a lot of Russian boys, and men, are reading about this with their trousers down their ankles. :shrug:

---

and the same could be said for the cold war revivalists on the other side as well.

Funny. When I read about it a few days ago my first thought was "Vuk will make a post about this!" And no, it won't be a "game changer". The article already describes the issues.

Russia is spending in a decade or so what America spends per year.
They're building a lot of old junk that the current NATO army is designed to destroy. Even if they built new stuff there's not the personnel to use it properly.
They have a massive border so require a large force merely for relatively light cover
They're a lot closer to China which is much more quickly increasing and modernising their forces - not just making press announcements. China also thinks a massive part of Siberia is theirs.

The future might not contain the same level of Pax Americana as previous years, but this isn't a game changer.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Once your past Poland the Rhine the périphérique your barely considered european to a Frenchman

---

Teh fix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

And where was US? They trained Georgian army, but once Russians strolled in where were they?

---

This is an issue that I disagreed with American policy strongly on. The US should have made a great show of force, courted the Chinese and threatened the Eurowieners into joining them. They should have made it clear to Russia that if they did not leave the region, they would be attacked...and they should have kept their word.

This however has nothing to do with my point about Europe.

Russian egos combine with vested military industrial interest + a bit of Keynesianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

This is an issue that I disagreed with American policy strongly on. The US should have made a great show of force, courted the Chinese and threatened the Eurowieners into joining them. They should have made it clear to Russia that if they did not leave the region, they would be attacked...and they should have kept their word.

This however has nothing to do with my point about Europe.

---

To even waste on American life on some petty level sphere of influence struggle is tantamount to stupidty

None of this even matters, Russia is important becuase it has allot of nukes and will remain so. Some piddily spending which probably won't happen is inconsequntial

haha I missed the ottoman empire analogy. I only find solace in the fact that the gene pool isn't being weakend

Praise Yaweh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

To even waste on American life on some petty level sphere of influence struggle is tantamount to stupidty

None of this even matters, Russia is important becuase it has allot of nukes and will remain so. Some piddily spending which probably won't happen is inconsequntial

---

Attacking a US ally is an afront to the US. This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them. Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?
Allowing a potential threat to exist longer does not save lives, but only serves to make the maximum possible number of lives lost greater at some point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Attacking a US ally is an afront to the US. This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them. Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?

---

Well we shouldn't be so willy nilly with our word in the first place

But in the case of Georgia, yes, we should. I do not care one second for a group of strongmen who made some US coin after the cold war simply becuase they share a border with the worlds angeriest alcoholics

Quote:

---

Allowing a potential threat to exist longer does not save lives, but only serves to make the maximum possible number of lives lost greater at some point in time.

---

This would of course mean that the 650Billion is a threat which its not

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well we shouldn't be so willy nilly with our word in the first place

But in the case of Georgia, yes, we should. I do not care one second for a group of strongmen who made some US coin after the cold war simply becuase they share a border with the worlds angeriest alcoholics


This would of course mean that the 650Billion is a threat which its not

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN

---

So would you be willing to apply your 'hands off' policy to the 1990's situation in the Balkans? Do you think that we did the wrong thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dft7RFqB1_A

Those aren't even bloody letters

And yes I would have sex with her. I would have sex with allot of women though, doesn't mean I’m willing to get involved in the comic affairs of their useless pieces of territory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them.

---

The world is full of innocent lives that America supposedly stands behind but very little is done about it. Georgia isn't the exception, it's the rule and when the US (or NATO or the EU) does intervene it is invariably because they have (or believe they have) something to gain - they don't do it for humanitarian reasons.

Quote:

---

Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?

---

I'd argue the US has been in the habit of breaking its word for quite some time.

As for the original topic, no this isn't a gamechanger. I don't agree with some others statements about the poor quality of Russian forces, you are wildely underestimating them, but this is nothing new to NATO and it has been taken into account when making decisions regarding European armament.