This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Are The Russians Coming?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Erico Tavares of Sinclair & Co.

Are The Russians Coming?

Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that a serious confrontation with the West is coming.

In a recent speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi, laced with geopolitical and historical references, he stated that “changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts.”

What type of conflict is he referring to?

In the nuclear age, a head on collision between the major world powers is unthinkable. The devastation that would ensue would likely end civilization, if not all life on this planet. It would take a real act of desperation for anyone to use that card.

Russia remains a nuclear powerhouse for sure. However, when it comes to conventional warfare their capabilities have significantly fallen behind in recent decades. And it turns out that this has real geopolitical consequences.

Russia’s Asymmetrical Disadvantage in Conventional Warfare

The following picture, widely circulated in the Western media some days ago, depicts a Russian strategic bomber being intercepted by a Portuguese fighter jet on a NATO mission [Note: so far this is perhaps the most salient feat in Portuguese military achievements in an otherwise terrible year].

More than yet another alleged incursion into NATO airspace, what is striking in this picture is the obvious difference in technologies of the two aircraft: the Russian bomber, the Tupolev Tu-95 or the “Bear” as it is known in Western circles, still runs on propeller engines. First introduced back in 1952, it is an icon of the Cold War - and one of the noisiest military aircraft around. Russia is the only country in the world which still uses propeller-powered bombers.

For sure the “Bear” can still get the job done, but compare that to its US rival, the B-52 Stratofortress, introduced at around the same time. Having been continuously upgraded over the years, it now features subsonic, jet-powered engines and advanced technological capabilities. It is so modern and effective that the US Air Force is considering extending its use beyond 2040. And the B-2 stealth bomber, a (very expensive) marvel of modern US technology, is so far apart that it is not even comparable.

Unlike its Western counterparts, in order to project force the Kremlin can only rely on its dated Cold War arsenal. Looking at military spending in recent decades clearly shows why.

Military Expenditure in Selected Countries (constant 2011 US$ billion): 1988-2013
Source: SIPRI.

After the collapse of Russia's economy in the early 1990s, the country's military spending pretty much went down with it. It has started recuperating only recently. On the other hand, the US has been outspending everyone else by a wide margin since the end of the Cold War, and is clearly on a league of its own. Even “pacifist” Japan and Germany together spend more than Russia today, as part of their international commitments. Saudi Arabia, Russia's oil rival and fierce opponent of its allies in the Middle East, is not too far behind.

Putin is keenly aware of this asymmetry in conventional terms. Going back to the speech referenced earlier, he stated that “in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization.”

Western military leaders are of course emboldened by this situation and may just keep on pressing their advantage.

But Russia is not out. While it may be out-gunned for now, its military is still world class, featuring impressive capabilities – including various types of advanced nuclear weapons. And it is not alone either. The world’s emerging superpower, China, is increasingly on its side, which had not been the case during the Cold War. Moreover, it has diplomatic and economic arguments which can augment its military capabilities. Just ask any European using Russian gas to keep warm this coming winter.

Perhaps this is why Forbes magazine just ranked Putin as the world’s most powerful man for the second year running. The question is, how will he use that power?

A New Cold War?

While the world’s superpowers could not risk fighting each other directly during the Cold War (although they came close a few times), they were actively engaged in a warfare of another kind: supporting proxy wars, with one side trying to entangle the other in messy and expensive regional conflicts, while overtly and covertly undermining the support for its ideology.

The Iron Curtain, the Vietnam War, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the regime overthrows across Latin America, the nuclear arms race... We should all be thankful that those days are behind us. Or are they?

Today the US can entangle itself with no help from others, given all that has been going on in the Middle East. The bills keep piling up, and there could be a scenario where the US might run out of dollars before the world runs out of terrorists. Still, renewed intervention is a real prospect should things start spinning out of control in the region – nobody else has the capability to step in and preserve energy flows to the West. Senator John McCain, which clearly favors a more muscular approach, will have a very busy time as the new head of the Senate Armed Services.

Russia is also gradually being dragged into regional conflicts of its own. With the situation raging in Ukraine, one wonders how much longer it can stay on the sidelines, particularly if pro-Russia forces start losing considerable ground there. And things are not looking too great for the besieged Assad regime in Syria, which hosts the Russian fleet at the Mediterranean port of Tartus. The bills are starting to add up for the Russians too.

But confrontation can extend beyond military means alone. Globalization and greater economic integration in the post-Cold War world facilitated the creation of another “weapon” that can be used as a retaliatory measure: economic sanctions.

For all of Russia’s bravado in the face of Western imposed sanctions pursuant to its role in Ukraine, there is no doubt that they have a real bite to them. The collapse of the rubble has accelerated in recent weeks and ordinary Russians are now paying dearly for essential foreign goods, even those that originate in the countries that stepped in to replace European food and other imports. Furthermore, the coincidental (or not) sharp decline in oil prices undermines Russia’s staying power in this situation, as well as its ability to use its own energy supplies as a retaliatory measure given the dwindling of foreign reserves.

So far the West seems to be prevailing here, but there could be serious blowback consequences on Russia’s main trading partners.

Composition of Russia’s Imports by Country: 2012 est.
Source: CIA World Factbook.

The graph above shows that many Western companies – and crucially banks, many of which are heavily exposed to emerging markets – might share the pain as well. Let’s not forget that the disruption of international trade pursuant to the introduction of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 in the US and the subsequent retaliatory measures largely contributed to the length and depth of the severe global depression that followed.

Not even China, which so far has emerged as a beneficiary of these East-West spats by securing long-term imports of cheap Russian gas and increasing its global influence while everyone else gets bogged down in regional conflicts, might escape unscathed.

Therefore, as each side escalates its retaliation and seeks to inflict greater damage on the other, both in terms of economic loss and human suffering, we might be getting close to a point of no return. A dynamic can be set in motion where nobody will want to “lose face” and yield to the demands of the other side. And the world might once again be inexorably slipping into another Cold War, just as Putin warned. We will all be worse off as a result.

It seems that international diplomacy is becoming as dated as those Russian bombers. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:20 | 5427563 Batman11
Batman11's picture

Just reading "Flash Boys".

The West's achilles heel is Wall Street, it nearly took the West down in 2008.

Most of the HFT programmers are Russian - do they have a new secret weapon?

 

 

 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:27 | 5427575 basho
basho's picture

"For sure the “Bear” can still get the job done,  ".

Completely off track in your first statement. 

The rest of it is a bit naive.

Don't give up your day time job for your hobby of half baked analysis.

 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:29 | 5427577 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Good timing of this zh article and one in rt today

Russia’s deployed nuclear capacity overtakes US for first time since 2000.

http://rt.com/news/193604-russia-nuclear-capacity-start/

I wonder how much more cost efficient a Topol on a 16 wheel mobile launcher meandering around the steppes of Central Asia is compared to a Tupolev Tu-95?

 

Bombers are sooo WWII.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:45 | 5427617 Miketheterrible
Miketheterrible's picture

Tu-95 is not like B-52 in the sense of how they operate.  Tu-95 is a cruise missile carrier while B-52 is a pure heavy bomber.  Tu-95 is meant to carry long range, nuclear tipped cruise missiles.  Kh-101,102 and 555 have various ranges anywhere between 1,000 to 5,000 KM engagement range and in such a case, a Tu-95 does not have to be even close, or even within airspace to devistate a nations hardend infrastructure as (besides Kh-101) the rest are nuclear tipped.  These are to suppliment (also much cheaper) the ground based and sub based nuclear tipped ICBM's.  Tactical nukes are by far more important for Russia than ICBM's and SSBN's simply because both of these two are meant to be and end game measure, while Tactical nukes are used to change the conflict around and to destroy hardened targets at massive ranges, so that they cannot continue the battle (massive military logistic centers, shipyards, airforce bases, etc.

At least this is what I got from some other people and certain talk of doctrine (many of Russia's doctrine is actually based off of Soviet doctrine and is somewhat out of date).

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 21:33 | 5427667 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

while B-52 is a pure heavy bomber.  

 

Your understanding of the B52 is stuck on the Vietnam setting.  Not so much any more. 

 

The dolts that will thumb this down are the ones that haven't figured out how to do a google search indicating that the B52 is a platform for cruise missiles.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:57 | 5427937 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

 

I have no idea if I'm right or wrong, but I don't think you can be a little bit pregnant when you are discussing armed confrontation between the world's two largest nuclear powers.

Won't everything be flying in the first two minutes?

Especially when US neocons are one side of the equasion

And Russia can't afford to be reasonable and believe any more US lies..

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:17 | 5427995 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

It's not the size of the insect that matters.  It's the sting that counts.  The Tupolev Tu-95 carries a nasty sting.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:30 | 5427580 BlackVoid
BlackVoid's picture

Haha, the US still does not dare to move troops to Ukraine. 

The US army is in fact inferior to the Russian. Why?

The US carriers are large slow targets and would be very easy to sink even without nukes.

The US advantage in air is tottally negated by the Russian advantage in anti-aircraft missiles.

What remains is ground troops, tanks and missiles. In each Russia has the advantage.

END OF STORY.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:44 | 5427616 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

The US stragey is for Europe and Russia to destroy each other, leaving Pax

Americana as the top dog, after dealing with China.

Look at the situation dispassionately, and rebut this theory if you can.

As far as I can see, nothing else fits with everything that has been going down.

'The truth is so precious it must be cloaked in lies'.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:24 | 5427698 BlackVoid
BlackVoid's picture

No militarily, no. Europe cannot stand up to Russia and Russia has 0 reason to invade anyway.

The US is planning economic ruin for everyone else. They will get it instead soon.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:41 | 5427608 Miketheterrible
Miketheterrible's picture

No, Russian's are not coming.  Instead, Russian's are hoping to build what they can, how they can, the way they want it for themselves and their current partners.  It isn't only just Russia at threat here, many forget that there is also Belarus, Kazakhstan and various other CIS countries whom are friendly/allied to Russia like Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and such.  In reality, it is simply where Russia will aim at developing themselves, and their allies/friends whom will want to work with Russia.  What all this may mean though is that Russia will put a stiffer pressure on western Europe if they want to do business with Russia again (after all this debacle which will eventually die down) and may drop from WTO and may not pay off their foreign debt.  If they don't they will have a lower credit rating, which makes very little difference since they are banned from obtaining the cheap credit now anyway.  So they may not pay it back and western banks will get hit hard from that since they won't see their money back.  No one will be able to simply walk in and take back the physical assets that was built in Russia under western money.  Just means that Russia wont get further loans from them and will be hard to obtain any in future.

What I have been hearing from Russian's back home is that they are now kinda "pushing" their products and investments abroad.  There is becoming more concentration on BRICS and other nations for Russian investments (investing in building banks in other countries (Sberbank in South Africa, JV bank between Iran and Russia, next years BRICS bank in Brazil, China, India, etc), investing in raw materials in other countries (Platinum, oil, gas and other metals extraction in Africa and South America), and now they are starting to push their products to other countries (Agriculture and construction equipment to middle east, Africa, Latin America and CIS countries) and alike.

There will not be a major war.  Reason is, even though rhetoric is high which is pushing military production through the roof, both sides and Europe knows that Nukes exist and it has been clear that Tactical nukes will be used in any conflict where they know they will have a tough time fighting against conventionally, so that is Europe and USA.  So in such a matter, both sides know that will not end well regardless of defenses.  It just means that they will just probably end up going back to the old ways: Side A vs Side B and both have their own respective economies and economic models.  Any other way is purely tin foil.  But if I am wrong, god help us all.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:47 | 5427619 besnook
besnook's picture

the russian view from a top russian security guy. http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/0...

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:55 | 5427629 10mm
10mm's picture

The influx of illegals will be fodder contingent on being granted citizenship, along with their off spring.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:53 | 5427631 KuriousKat
KuriousKat's picture

 

Some middle school kid made a video on the Russian Red manace threat..Just the idea some youngins can see thru the baloney is a sign of hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoE1CqsLIQ

I grew up in this climate..
Duck and cover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

If you see a flash duck cover put head betwen knees and kiss your ass goodbye..

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:53 | 5427633 css1971
css1971's picture

The tu95 turboprops are more fuel efficient than jets and it still flies at max of 925km/h, a range up to 15,000km and a ceiling of 12km, lifting capacity 93000kg.

B52: max speed: 1040km/h, range: 14,000km, ceiling: 15km, can lift 136000kg.

B52 costs: $75million each

Tu95 costs: $26million each

So you get a capability in the same ballpark as the US but for 1/3 the price. Question being, why would you bother to upgrade what is pretty clearly an obsolete concept? i.e. strategic bomber.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:53 | 5427635 BudFox2012
BudFox2012's picture

If war starts with the Russians, it may be far different than you envision. It's not going to be WWII part duex. While we move tanks, look for the Russians and Chinese to move assemetricslly. They will attack with hackers against our financial system. They will use spetznaz commando to attack our power grid. Just last year an unknown team of assailants cut the communications at a transformer complex in California, shot up all the units with ak's, and fled undetected. No prints on the shell casings, precision shooting, and pre-marked shooting points. Very professional job, and possibly was a test run by the Russians or Chinese. Pretty easy to drop of commandos by sub, or let them cross the border in Mexico.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 15:57 | 5427643 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

They will attack with hackers against our financial system.

 

Check out a movie called "Dragon Day".  It's about that scenario.  The acting and writing are kinda cheesy, but it's worth the $12 for the DVD and a glimpse of what you describe.  I picked it up at Walmart after stumbling across it the other day.

 

 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:02 | 5427650 BudFox2012
BudFox2012's picture

I have it. Pretty good b movie. In that one all the Chinese chips had back door hacks, and they shut everything down

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:09 | 5427671 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

The concept was a little bit of a pucker factor I hadn't thought about.  No need to nuke EMP it, just hack it. 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:04 | 5427659 BudFox2012
BudFox2012's picture

I have it. Pretty good b movie. In that one all the Chinese chips had back door hacks, and they shut everything down

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:04 | 5427654 besnook
besnook's picture

the premise is stupid. the fight is not just with russia for one. they seem to have some allies in the fight. a prop plane as an image of the russian military is pure propaganda, comical. the usa does not have the capability to take on russia directly. that is the bottom line. in spite of the trillions spent on "defense", the usa military is impotent except as a threat enforcer against recalcitrant leaders not wanting their countries blown up or themselves killed even if they win in the end.

the russians are coming but are not alone. better yet, the usa is coming and the brics are prepared.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:02 | 5427656 giggler321
giggler321's picture

All this really points to one thing- the next war will be big, quick and involve nukes because why wait to be defeated with new conventional weapons when the people attacking are shit scared of your nukes?  Easy choice really, 1 red, 1960's button ends their global conquest.  There is no point fighting or arguing when they don't listen.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:03 | 5427660 Consuelo
Consuelo's picture

The attempt to equate the use of a TU-95 in a purely reconnaissance role to the overall capabilities of Russian military hardware/inventory, shows either extreme naiveté on the behalf of the author, or plain ignorance.   Why send a TU-160 in the air when a TU-95 can perform the task?   Why take unnecessary risks or the risk of heightened perceived provocation by sending up your best shit, when you're simply on a 'probing' mission?   Secondly, what reliable intel does the U.S. have that gives the it any special insight as to what modernized/updated inventory Russia now has in its arsenal - with particular attention to its air force capabilities?

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:54 | 5427901 Lea
Lea's picture

"The attempt to equate the use of a TU-95 in a purely reconnaissance role to the overall capabilities of Russian military hardware/inventory, shows either extreme naiveté on the behalf of the author, or plain ignorance."

That's what I thouht too. The author doesn't seem to even understand what the Russians were doing. Flexing military muscles with Bears, when they have supersonic Blackjacks and Fencers? Pu-leeze! By now, the Russians have mapped out the whole of the Nato forces, locations, estimated might, the whole works, with their Flankers and old Bears fully upgraded for reconnaissance missions.

Also, he mistakes military expenditures with efficiency. To him, the USA spends moar, therefore its weapons are better. He forgets, though, that one can end up spending astounding levels of money on crap (see F35 for details, or F22).

In short, extreme naiveté or sad, plain ignorance, like you said.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:26 | 5427703 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

This is not a difficult concept.

In 1960 it was easier to intercept a Bear (carrying  a gravity bomb) with a Lightening  then it is to intercept it with a Eurofighter or any other tactical fighter today before it delivers its load.

 

These aircraft are merely  platforms for other airplanes today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-55

At least 4 of these from one mother aircraft must be intercepted before reaching the target. 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:29 | 5427711 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

The Russians have a military Philosophy that sometimes works.

Keep it simple stupid.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:33 | 5427718 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Dude, shove a neocon up your bumba. You want a bad hair day., The new TZAR nukes can take out the eastern seaboard if just one of those clunkers gets shot down.

The 50 year old ones below would shattered windows 1000 miles away. They are much more powerful today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnm3V0xYjI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNYe_UaWZ3U

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:44 | 5427728 Lea
Lea's picture

Given that this article is illustrated with a hammer and a sickle, I immediately took it the author is an ignoramus who doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about. Upon reading it, it's nothing but Nato's usual misleading communication.

I lost two minutes of precious time reading it.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:46 | 5427741 jtg
jtg's picture

Russia has already said they will use nuclear weapons to defend the Russian Federation. Since Russia has no intention of invading the West a WW3 scenario will result from a US started war which Russia will respond to with nuclear weapons to defend themselves. At the start of WW3 Russia will of course respond with their conventional weapons which are much more advanced than the Tupolev bomber. If the US attack on Russia starts to overpower them then Russia will go nuclear and that will be the end of all of us.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:05 | 5427789 22winmag
22winmag's picture

They have enough to nukes to make things very interesting. The U.S. simply pissed away it's former 'nuckular superiority'.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 16:46 | 5427742 IndianaJohn
IndianaJohn's picture

When you are looking down the barrel of a .38 it does not matter how outdated the 38 may be. And the contents of your pocket is irrevleant.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:02 | 5427777 22winmag
22winmag's picture

Like I always say, insurgencies have always depended primarily on rusty old fashioned bolt-action rifles, yesterday and today.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:09 | 5427776 Moccasin
Moccasin's picture

It matters not who is the President of Russia, the people of Russia will do what ever is necessary to survive and succeed with sovereignty and security. Russia is the only country in Europe that can turn its back on the West, face East and profit. BRICS is a reality, the development of oil and gas infrastructure with China as a partner will ensure Russia's strong hand long term in geopolitics. I consider the sanctions as having a temporary effect in Russia as it develops natural alliances (due to geography) that exist today. The EU is failing, many of the EU nations are welfare states and NATO can beat its chest all it wants, NATO is impotent with a nuclear Kalashnikov pointed at its head. Russia knows this and has a much deeper and longer view of its place in world then we in the West. The West suffers from myopia and self induced grandiosity, in short we/most of us buy the propaganda from our MSM. Russian propaganda is different, it has no 'cycle', it is long term and it knows how to win the hearts and minds of the people, the people of Russia are very willing to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. Putin's popularity exemplifies this and is at 70 to 80% and holding. Our presidents of past could only dream about being that accepted. Obama in comparison is a total failure and no surprise, he has lied often and has been incapable of honouring his commitments. We in the West will not understand Russia because of our sense of entitlement is entrenched, we want fast food NOW, not later. Russians do not see the world the same way we in America are told to and that is the difference.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:33 | 5428148 silverer
silverer's picture

A good hit on the nail head, there. It's as you said, but it's no longer just Russia. It's Russia and its new allies. Big difference the US must consider, or not at its own peril.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:08 | 5427799 Rusputin
Rusputin's picture

"...still runs on propeller engines... ...and one of the noisiest military aircraft..."

But what weapons is he carrying in his 20 ton payload? The ones we know about of course...

OK, first off... That noise you hear is the supersonic shock wave you get, a few seconds after the heat wave, generated by the 2 miilion degree nuclear fire ball, that melts your skin and house/office/car, just long enough before your ears melt, to detect the boom, just before you're done and ready to serve.

Just one of Tu-95's 200Kt nuclear tipped cruise missiles, with a crazily long range of 2,500km, but in first strike mode, will only be within 200 nautical miles from your city/club/office/pub, so will reach you at 900mph, within about 15 minutes from launch, so well before your fighter defence is within range to shoot down aformentioned Tu-95, before he takes a megaton dump on you, in fire and forget manner.

Once he's launched his 10 cruise missiles = 2mt in total, he's not expecting to return to base without being shot down of course (brave people), but his chums in another dozen or so Tu-95s also within 200 miles have released another 24mt of missiles. And this is just the entre!!!

Now do you think the Tu-95 is just an old chugger? Those noisy propellers are so 1950s aren't they?

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 17:11 | 5427808 Moccasin
Moccasin's picture

LMAO at truths! Well stated.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:32 | 5428143 silverer
silverer's picture

Right. All you have to do is get within range to launch. Warheads that split up into multiple packages, etc.. You can count on the fact that the nuclear reaction that follows is not inferior in any way to US nuclear weapons.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:01 | 5427946 pavel
pavel's picture

No rational species would engage in nuclear war. Secondary and and tertiary effects would complete near extinction - give it 18 months to a bit more. Not enough of living would remain to bury the dead

 

Are we a rational species?

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 20:32 | 5428321 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

 

No.  

The neocons aren't rational.  They think they are exceptional.

They can't wait until the skin melts off their skulls.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:02 | 5427952 Moribundus
Moribundus's picture

The continuing attacks on Vladimir Putin and Russia by members of the western political, military and journalistic elite tell us one thing – the Russian President is doing a good job both for the people of his country and in the international arena.

For it is a rule which invariably holds true – if the Western elites praise the leader of a foreign country it means he is doing something which is good for those elites and bad for his country. If he’s demonized, as Putin is, it’s the other way round.

RT.com

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:28 | 5428134 silverer
silverer's picture

That makes sense. I would warn anybody not to underestimate the Russians. Even though their technology appears inferior, they are clever in its use and deployment. We spend a dollar and get $0.20 worth. They spend the same and get double that. And even if it comes up to less, keep in mind that their nuclear arsenal is larger than ours, and the warheads far more powerful, and they are sure to get a few hits here, so that kind of exchange is a lose/lose for both sides. Putin is now busy doing one thing: setting up the alternative financial system to the dollar. Success there is true victory: better than winning any military war.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:04 | 5427959 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Everyone knows the USSR got weaker every year after WW2 compared to the US. They are still a paper tiger.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:39 | 5428037 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

Bullshit

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:19 | 5428094 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Russia has been weak starting with the Cuban missile crisis. Check your history.

No bullshit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/intro.htm

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 11:37 | 5429385 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Down arrows in the face ot truth cracks me up everytime.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:15 | 5427986 cart00ner
cart00ner's picture

Appears old Gorbachev would agree...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29966852

A new cold war is uppon us.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:23 | 5427993 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

Open Borders are all fun and games until it suddently becoms aparent that the Chinese are quietly landing ten thousand+++ a week on the western coast/Cali/Washington/Alaska ( each and every one of them demands the same processes and largess as those latinos crossing the southern border ) -and China simply doesn't stop sending them no matter what is said by them or the US...

The LaRaza/Open Border/Amnesty idiots and their political lackeys will shit their pants when they realize how thoroughly they have been used and outflanked.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 18:34 | 5428029 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

The premise of this article is bullshit.  Russia (and previously the USSR) is a world leader in high energy weapon development and other "black" military technologies.  The USA or any other western country would be very foolish to disregard their capabilities in those areas.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:43 | 5428174 kianator
kianator's picture

DW - A lot of articles posted on ZH are not worth reading, especially this one. But, not for the reasons you stated.  Too many authors on ZH post articles who have just enough geoploitical savvy, but possess a bare minimum knowledge of modern warfare with today's advanced command, control, and combat systems.  

 

 

 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:42 | 5428175 kianator
kianator's picture

DW - A lot of articles posted on ZH are not worth reading, especially this one. But, not for the reasons you stated.  Too many authors on ZH post articles who have just enough geoploitical savvy, but possess a bare minimum knowledge of modern warfare with today's advanced command, control, and combat systems.  

 

 

 

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:01 | 5428075 Breezy47
Breezy47's picture

And as probably already stated here but this is the result of obama being more flexible after the election. For God's sake he named one of his daughters Nastasha.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 21:18 | 5428431 Volkodav
Volkodav's picture

Medvedev said later he had no idea what O was talking about...

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 00:23 | 5428812 talisman
talisman's picture

by "more flexible", Obama simply meant that he bends over quicker and deeper for Netanyahu

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 19:27 | 5428132 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

Senator John McCain prefers 'a more muscular approach' because he is an old two time loser ex-Presidential candidate that lost in Vietnam, the Presidential election, and at any more chances of getting to run for the Republican Party on the next Presidential run for office. McCain has been sidelined by the most unpopular President since Richard Nixon and he is frustrated by the fact that his leadership capability will be forever questioned in light of his last loss to O'Bummer. Taken together, it is not surprising that old fucks like McCain are desperate to recoup popularity

and score television ratings once again. The man is likely as senile as Greenspan and the rest of the neocon era stooges. Having McCain at the helm of anything is a disaster waiting to happen, believe me, USA. McCain

likely wears depends, and has fallen, but he can't get up, USA. Of course he 'would prefer a more muscular approach', and at that age who the hell would not? McCain is a liability for the USA because of his dithering age and senility. Time to put the old bastard out to pasture, methinks. Just sayin' he needs to go, USA. Take the hint, nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean? :|

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 20:10 | 5428265 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

no worry.Our BFF Israel will help us.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 20:51 | 5428358 Joe A
Joe A's picture

The objective of the Bear bomber is to be a launching platform for missiles. For nuclear missiles but also for air-to-surface and anti-ship missiles to take out carrier groups, and not so much for dropping bombs. These bombers would stay well out of range and fire these missiles. In an event of war they would be considered expendable anyway.

Gorbatchev said the other day that a new cold war is on the horizon and that it is the West's fault because it expanded NATO against agreements not to do so. He is right about violating agreements but what did they expect? That these formers communist countries in eastern Europe would just sit and wait and be sitting ducks for Russia to take? Of course they would opt for a security alliance that would defend them.

But NATO, the US and the EU overplayed their hand though with Ukraine. It gave Putin the opportunity to do what he wanted to do: annex Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. But his response in turn gave NATO the opportunity what it wanted to do for a long time: put NATO's troops right on Russia's doorstep and move large amounts of troops into eastern Europe. Close proximity of big armies is never a good idea though. But what is to be feared most are Russia's tactical nuclear weapons -so called battlefield nuclear weapons-. Russia has thousands of them. But any use of them has the chance of leading to all out nuclear war.

Europe is fucked, again because a confrontation between NATO and Russia will be fought out in Europe. Europe and the EU were stupid to rely their energydependency on Russia and the ME with America dictating the game.

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 00:18 | 5428809 talisman
talisman's picture

The individual Nations of Europe were (and still are) incredibly naieve and  stupid to hand all of their Sovereign rights-including military- over to the "EU", Brussels, and NATO--which are nothing but very poorly disguised puppets of USAIPAC and Israel. 

Mon, 11/10/2014 - 13:47 | 5432912 Bankster Kibble
Bankster Kibble's picture

NATO plans didn't work in Georgia 2008, either.  One would think they would learn from past mistakes.

Mon, 11/10/2014 - 13:47 | 5432913 Bankster Kibble
Bankster Kibble's picture

NATO plans didn't work in Georgia 2008, either.  One would think they would learn from past mistakes.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 20:50 | 5428375 Sick
Sick's picture

Russia is being set up to be blamed for a false flag attack.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 21:20 | 5428432 Signs of the end
Signs of the end's picture

The argument and comments here are so 20th century. What matters is not conventional or nuclear weaponry; what matters is Energy and Bio - weapons.  Russia is 2nd again only to the US in these technologies.  A strategically deployed weapon (Ebola cough cough) is far more potent than nukes or bombs.  So who has more advanced Bombers is largely irrelevant in the 21st century.  Space age has arrived and along with it Flash Gordon technologies.  Lasers baby lasers.  

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 00:11 | 5428798 talisman
talisman's picture

energy and bioweapons???

How about cyberwarfare???

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 21:37 | 5428482 WTFUD
WTFUD's picture

Isn't it comforting that the EEEUUUUU is the USSA's first line of defense?

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 21:45 | 5428499 Amerikan Patriot
Amerikan Patriot's picture

The most robust part of Russia's leadership is Vlad doing one-armed pushups, flipping flaccid volunteers to the judo mat, etc. 

After a few more months of the ruble crisis, Russia's diminishing currency reserves and cheap oil, Vlad is going to beg for the West's forgiveness.

Given the ruble's recent slide (to 48.6 Friday morning before recovering somewhat), Russia just needs a good old fashioned currency crisis (patterned after the 1998 devaluation) to clear the sinuses of the miserable wretches that haven't yet been able to secure a visa out of the country.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 22:21 | 5428595 Lumberjack
Lumberjack's picture
Russian Energy Giants Consider Listing Securities on Hong Kong Stock Exchange: Minister

http://en.ria.ru/business/20141108/195319981/Russian-Energy-Giants-Consi...

 

BEIJING, November 8 (RIA Novosti) - Russian energy giants RosneftLukoil and Gazpromconsider listing their securities in Asian currencies on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Russian Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said Saturday.

"The largest Russian companies – Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil – are considering the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as a platform to list their securities in Asian currencies (yuan, Hong Kong dollar, Singapore dollar)," the ministry's press service quoted Ulyukayev as saying at a meeting with the Hong Kong's Commerce and Economic Development Bureau's Secretary Gregory So held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing.

According to the minister, the Russian energy giants are now taking actions aimed at having direct access – without the involvement of entities registered in other jurisdictions – to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in order to list their securities in Hong Kong dollars.

Sat, 11/08/2014 - 22:49 | 5428654 IronForge
IronForge's picture

The writer seems to forget that RUSsian Weapon Platforms are far cheaper than MIC_US' Goldplated Trophy Queens.

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 11:00 | 5428994 corbeau
corbeau's picture

TU-95 flights, military drills, ecc. are just a quiet warning - just don't try. A warning not to US - they know pretty well a try would be suicidal - but to all others, EU first. Because EU is the designated victim in this dirty game.

The main question is - why all this? Is Russia threatening somebody, going to invade Europe with 100 000 tanks? No. Is Russia encircling US with military bases full of nukes? No. Is Russia supporting regimes hostile to US? No. So what? Simple, Wattson - the Russian Federation is holding immense resources, which once depredated could supply some fresh air to already rotten system for, lets say, another ten years, or so. How this could be achieved? Direct clash excluded, the only possibility is to try breaking Russia from inside. Sacrifying in the process insignificant states as Poland, Ukraine, Pribaltics, Georgia, ecc. (because Germans remember far too well 1945). Pumping tension, maintaining low intensity conflicts, sucking the juice out from both Europe (the main competitor) and Russia, until (hopefuly) the last breaks into 15 or so states, possibly hostile to each other. Then creatures like Soros would have an easy game.

In my opinion the described above is simply the idiot's dream. Up to now we see results just opposite to the desired - russians hold together stronger and stronger. Europe will not follow its self destructing behaviour for long, and the rest of the world is drawing its conclusions which are certainly not very pro-american.

Sun, 11/09/2014 - 12:18 | 5429428 skifff
skifff's picture

Tu-95MS "Bear" is actually not dated cold war relic it was produced in 1985... so it's as old as B-2... Difference is B-2 can carry only bombs and does not carry any cruise missles Tu-95MS carries stratigic cruise missles so it doesn't need to penetrate someones air space it launches it's load far from enemies borders, as does B-52 but yongest B-52 was produced in 1963...- so there is 20 years of difference between planes.

I should add that all american made stratigic planes are subsonic as Tu-95MS, supersonic stratigic plane Tu-160 "Black Jack" (russians call it "White Swan") exist only in Russia.

http://rutube.ru/video/891864642e045669f32edcfe1ef77964/

Mon, 11/10/2014 - 13:44 | 5432902 Bankster Kibble
Bankster Kibble's picture

Remember when those White Swans flew down the Atlantic to Venezuela a few years ago for a visit.  What a flap that caused.  People who thought the old growlers were all Russia had were a little surprised.

Mon, 11/10/2014 - 22:02 | 5434937 skifff
skifff's picture

Sure, u can see them when they are not on the mission easily! That's the whole purpose of supersonic cruise missile carriers))) In Venezuela or Columbia, most likely... the were captured on camera by the recon jet that can not go supersonic... and their launch goes at the distance of 5000 km or 3000 miles from the target, so your comment accepted, but adds nothing. Result of attacking this plane, with any thing, other then gun, is unknown... it carries most sophisticated counter measures suite in existence, ask boys from the "D, Cook" cruiser ;-)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!