Putin's muscle flexing

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What does everyone think of this? Russia have restarted their Cold War patrols recently in response to 'security threats posed by other military powers'.


http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/07/2026481.htm?section=world


Britain's air force scrambled four Tornado warplanes to intercept eight Russian long-range bombers, but the Russian planes did not enter British air space, the Ministry of Defence said.

Russia's Defence Ministry said 14 strategic bombers had been flying long-range patrol operations but none approached a foreign state and most were accompanied by fighter jets from NATO countries.

Relations between Britain and Russia are at their worst since the Cold War, but the Foreign Office said Britain did not see a recent Russian decision to resume of long-range patrols as a cause for alarm and that "normal preparedness" was in place.

Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB bodyguard suspected of murdering emigre Alexander Litvinenko in London last year, led to tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats this year.

"In the early hours of this morning four RAF (Royal Air Force) Tornado F3 aircraft... were launched to intercept eight Russian Bear aircraft which had not entered UK air space," the Ministry of Defence said in a statement.

A British Foreign Office spokesman said relations with Russia "continue as normal outside the unresolved extradition request".

The Tupolev Tu-95, code-named 'Bear' by NATO, is Russia's equivalent of the US B-52 bomber and is a Cold War icon.

Russia's Defence Ministry said 14 Russian strategic bombers had started long-range routine patrol operations on Wednesday evening over the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic.

"The planes flew only over neutral water and did not approach the air space of a foreign state," it said.

"Practically all the planes were accompanied by fighters from NATO countries."

It is at least the second time in recent months Britain has scrambled jets to intercept Russian bombers.

The sorties by Russian bombers appeared to the latest of the regular long-range patrols that President Vladimir Putin announced last month would be resumed, after a gap following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[janneppi]

I wasn't too surprised about it when i heard it, Russia is trying to regain it's Soviet era military might, even if it' only for show at the moment.
The message basically is Russia is still the biggest bear in these neck of woods.

[Daniel]

I'm not sure. Originally the Bears were grounded because Russia didn't have money to keep it's airforce up in the air. Now obviously they're a bit more flush with cash so it's different. But I think the worrying thing is Russia now has money. One Finn said to me that Russia couldn't take Finland in WW2 so now they're just buying it. It may start with Finland but I'm sure Russian investment and takeovers aren't just going to stop there.

On the plus side all hail Prince Vladimir with the sexy pecs :D

[Rudy Tamasz]

Oil money is about all Russia has at the moment. Its military is corrupt and the army is famous for the ugly tradition of bullying the rookies. They have been badly beaten by Chechen rebels. Kremlin guys are drunk on the illusion of omnipotence, but one day they will have a hangover. But they still need some good schooling and too bad nobody in the West is strong enough to give it to them.

[BDunnell]

At the same time as this is going on, it is worth remembering that there are still co-operative links between Russian forces and those of the West, so this differs from the situation in the Cold War.

The truth is that few outside Russia really know the current status of its armed forces. Their commanders say that they are starting a programme to, for example, bring the readiness and training of their aircraft and pilots up to something approaching NATO standards in the next few years, but these same commanders also make wildly optimistic statements about the delivery dates of new equipment, so are very possibly not to be trusted. There is no doubt that more resources are currently being ploughed into the Russian military, but to what end, and how long can this go on? Procurement programmes involving Russian industry are often appallingly slow, so returns on this investment are rarely immediately apparent. Again, the Kremlin says that amalgamating various companies into larger entities will help in this regard, but will it really? We cannot say yet.

[Flat.tyres]

Putin wanting a bit more skin in the game and ability to negiotiate is all this is.

Soon blow over in a year or so.

[millencolin]

maybe russia 'flexing its muscles' might be a good thing? could keep North Korea on its best behaviour? :p :

[BDunnell]

Let's not forget that this sort of operation is intended for Russian domestic consumption. It doesn't impress anyone else; nor is it something especially remarkable operationally.

[Mark]

The plan is to have two vast opposing armies. That way there can never be a war.

[BDunnell]

The plan is to have two vast opposing armies. That way there can never be a war.

That is often seen as a major contributory factor to the Cold War not turning 'hot', granted, but there is a big difference now, namely that the Russian threat is not entirely credible. I believe that both sides need to be properly matched for this to work, and this won't be the case for some years now, if at all.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

But China and Russia seem to be getting friendly now, if you see what I mean ;)

They were doing military maneuvers with each other last month.

With these air patrols is their not a risk that a plane could accidentally go into British airspace? Forcing the RAF into defending, similar to the UK-Iran standoff we had.

[BDunnell]

With these air patrols is their not a risk that a plane could accidentally go into British airspace? Forcing the RAF into defending, similar to the UK-Iran standoff we had.

Yes, that risk does exist, but a) I doubt whether the Russians would do so intentionally, even in the current climate, and b) if they did, I don't think we would react aggressively.

Certainly, we are a long way from mounting retaliatory 'patrols' in the vicinity of Russian airspace, too.

[A.F.F.]

How can you talk like that about Putin ???

He is such a fair guy.

[Daniel]

How can you talk like that about Putin ???

He is such a fair guy.
Nice pecs too :D

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/15/putin5.jpg

I've heard rumours that he's going to be replacing Daniel Craig in the next Bond movies. The directors say they were impressed by how
"hard" Daniel was but said he simply didn't have the chest for it and wasn't quite hard enough :D

[Malbec]

The truth is that few outside Russia really know the current status of its armed forces. Their commanders say that they are starting a programme to, for example, bring the readiness and training of their aircraft and pilots up to something approaching NATO standards in the next few years, but these same commanders also make wildly optimistic statements about the delivery dates of new equipment, so are very possibly not to be trusted. There is no doubt that more resources are currently being ploughed into the Russian military, but to what end, and how long can this go on? Procurement programmes involving Russian industry are often appallingly slow, so returns on this investment are rarely immediately apparent. Again, the Kremlin says that amalgamating various companies into larger entities will help in this regard, but will it really? We cannot say yet.

The Russians used to do this regularly during the Cold War. They knew the rules, so did we, there weren't any accidents even when these flights took place nearly every day.

The thing is, after the Cold War finished we found out it had all been a facade, that the Soviets didn't have the fuel or the parts to carry out the massive long range air raids these guys were supposedly probing for. I don't think this situation has changed much.

[Hondo]

That is often seen as a major contributory factor to the Cold War not turning 'hot', granted, but there is a big difference now, namely that the Russian threat is not entirely credible. I believe that both sides need to be properly matched for this to work, and this won't be the case for some years now, if at all.

I think the biggest reason it never went "hot" is because there was simply no reason for it to. Hitler's war was about gaining real estate, additional natural resouces, removing certain types and races of people from the European continent, and a little payback for WWI. The only thing Russia really stood to gain by rolling into the west would have been additional seaports. Any technology knowledge gained could have been gotten easier and cheaper by spying. It is unlikely that the UK would knuckle under so an invasion would have been necessary, very costly, and very possibly unsuccessful. The USA would keep hammering away and would have to be dealt with. Meanwhile, they would have to be explaining to their field troops and occupation forces why the standard of living of the common capitalistic lapdog working slave was so much higher than that of the Democratic Soviet Working Hero and at a time when they could barely manage to feed themselves, they would become responsible for the logistics and occupation of western Europe. Of course, they had to have enough left over to keep an eye on China and the disputed eastern territories. In short, there was nothing for the Soviet Union to gain and no feasible way to occupy the land once they got it.

Same thing in the west. There was no resources to be gained that couldn't be gotten from someplace else easier and the western forces wouldn't have been able to occupy Russia either.

Wars are fought to obtain and keep something. The cold war existed because of a lack of trust. Both sides, in public, said their military build ups were to guard against enemy attack, not for offensive purposes. I think they were just good for business. I would be surprised if, back then, people smarter than me couldn't see the complete folly of an all out East-West war in Europe.

[BDunnell]

The Russians used to do this regularly during the Cold War. They knew the rules, so did we, there weren't any accidents even when these flights took place nearly every day.

The thing is, after the Cold War finished we found out it had all been a facade, that the Soviets didn't have the fuel or the parts to carry out the massive long range air raids these guys were supposedly probing for. I don't think this situation has changed much.

They might not have had after the end of the Cold War, but earlier on the situation was somewhat different and the threat posed by their equipment and capabilities in themselves was much more real.

[BDunnell]

I think the biggest reason it never went "hot" is because there was simply no reason for it to. Hitler's war was about gaining real estate, additional natural resouces, removing certain types and races of people from the European continent, and a little payback for WWI. The only thing Russia really stood to gain by rolling into the west would have been additional seaports. Any technology knowledge gained could have been gotten easier and cheaper by spying. It is unlikely that the UK would knuckle under so an invasion would have been necessary, very costly, and very possibly unsuccessful. The USA would keep hammering away and would have to be dealt with. Meanwhile, they would have to be explaining to their field troops and occupation forces why the standard of living of the common capitalistic lapdog working slave was so much higher than that of the Democratic Soviet Working Hero and at a time when they could barely manage to feed themselves, they would become responsible for the logistics and occupation of western Europe. Of course, they had to have enough left over to keep an eye on China and the disputed eastern territories. In short, there was nothing for the Soviet Union to gain and no feasible way to occupy the land once they got it.

Same thing in the west. There was no resources to be gained that couldn't be gotten from someplace else easier and the western forces wouldn't have been able to occupy Russia either.

Wars are fought to obtain and keep something. The cold war existed because of a lack of trust. Both sides, in public, said their military build ups were to guard against enemy attack, not for offensive purposes. I think they were just good for business. I would be surprised if, back then, people smarter than me couldn't see the complete folly of an all out East-West war in Europe.

All that too. However, it is worth recalling that there were times when armed conflict between the superpowers seemed closer than others, despite the fact that there was nothing to be gained from it and, as you say, it would have been a folly to go to war.