Here comes Russia

[Mega]

I think they mean it!
https://rt.com/news/russian-aircraft-carrier-syria-363/
Throw a few S-300 Sam systems as well...........
Mike

[lektrode]

Re: Here comes Russia

I think they mean it!
https://rt.com/news/russian-aircraft-carrier-syria-363/
Throw a few S-300 Sam systems as well...........

hmmmm... could be, eh?
it also could be The Party out to make putin look 'pre-prezidential'

but then....

News of Russia’s naval deployment in Tartus came shortly after the US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush anchored off Syria, along with additional naval vessels. The US battle group is to remain in the Mediterranean, allegedly to conduct maritime security operations and support missions as part of Operations Enduring Freedom and New Dawn. The US 6th Fleet is also patrolling the area, Interfax reports.
“Of course, the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean will be incommensurate with those of the US 6th Fleet, which includes one or two aircraft carriers and several escort ships,” Admiral Kravchenko explained. “But today, no one talks about possible military clashes, since an attack on any Russian ship would be regarded as a declaration of war with all the consequences.”

but of course....
not much to see here, MOVE ALONG...

just another 'little test' for our fearless leader, perhaps?

and i just cant get a certain tune outa my head on this one....



but this one's playing too, so... uh.... i dunno....

[lektrode]

Re: Here comes Russia

these guys have all kinds of Fun News:

this one noted on turd's place today: http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/3042/cyber-monday

Man-made super-flu could kill half humanity



A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bioterrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.
*The virus is an H5N1 bird flu strain which was genetically altered to become much more contagious. It was created by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who first presented his work to the public at an influenza conference in Malta in September.
Fouchier said the strain circulates in animals, particularly birds, but rarely affects humans.
In the ten or so years since bird flu first emerged in Asia, fewer than 600 cases have been reported in humans. But the H5N1 strain is particularly vicious, killing roughly half of patients diagnosed with it. What stops it from becoming a major threat to public health is that it does not readily transmit from human to human. Or at least it didn’t – until now.
Researchers in Fouchier’s team used ferrets – test animals which closely mimic the human response to influenza – and transmitted H5N1 from one to another to make it more adaptable to new hosts. After 10 generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne, which means ferrets became ill from merely being near other diseased animals.

the rest of this: http://rt.com/news/bird-flu-killer-strain-119/

and then:

http://rt.com/news/phobos-grunt-climate-weapon-129/
Did US 'climate weapon' knock-out Russian probe?




The automatic Fobos-Grunt interplanetary station in assemblage building's pad. (RIA Novosti)


Russian space experts are struggling to decode fresh telemetry signals received from the stricken Phobos-Grunt probe. Meanwhile, rumors are circulating that America’s ionosphere research site in Alaska caused the spacecraft’s failure.

On Wednesday night, the European Space Agency’s station in Perth, Australia, established communication with Phobos-Grunt, which has been rotating helplessly around the Earth since its engines failed to fire two weeks ago.
The Perth station sent a command to the Russian craft which caused it to transmit long-awaited telemetry data, which was duly forwarded to Russian specialists.

Staff at the Lavochkin Association, which built the ill-fated Mars probe, are working on decoding the telemetry. Some insider reports suggested that the signal was scrambled beyond recovery due to lack of compatibility between Russian and European communications equipment, although this has been neither confirmed nor denied officially. If true, however, engineers should be able to make the necessary adjustments before the next communication session.

Also on Thursday, the ground station at Kazakhstan’s Baikonur managed to contact the orbiting probe as it passed overhead. They also managed to obtain some telemetry, the Russian space agency Roscosmos reported. Since November 9, Russian specialists have repeatedly tried to establish a connection with the spacecraft, but failed.

Meanwhile, a retired Russian general believes that the glitch which prevented Phobos-Grunt from carrying out its space mission was caused by American radar sites in Alaska.

General-Lieutenant Nikolay Rodionov, who used to command the country’s ballistic missile early warning system, told Interfax that “the powerful electromagnetic radiation of those sites may have affected the control system of the interplanetary probe.”

The general was apparently referring to the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) site located in Gakona, Alaska. The facility’s stated purpose is the study of the ionosphere and its use for communication. But several popular conspiracy theories say it is developing a superweapon with potential to cause natural disasters on a global scale, including earthquakes, climate change and reversal of the magnetic poles.

Phobos-Grunt’s mission was to reach the Martian moon Phobos, pick up a sample of its soil, and return it to Earth. The space trip was cut short, however, when its engines failed to fire as intended.

The probe is now stuck in a low-Earth orbit, which makes communication very difficult. There had been fears of it falling to Earth, but hopes rose on Tuesday night when the ESA managed to establish radio contact.

and we here in The US think our 'mainstream' media tends to get sensational?

whoa yeah baybee... just one 'little test' after another for the current occupant....
wonder if they got into this kinda stuff at harvard law school.

[oddlots]

Re: Here comes Russia

What ever happened to the "peace dividend"? Hit it lads:

My favourite version of that song...

[ASH]

Re: Here comes Russia

What ever happened to the "peace dividend"?

A rhetorical question, no doubt, but the answer is "1996 to about 2002".

The Soviet Union fell on Christmas 1991.

There are several valid ways to compare defense spending -- in constant dollars, as a share of total federal spending, or as a share of GDP. One data set, Table 8.4 here, gives the figures as a percentage of GDP. National defense spending the year the Soviet Union fell was 5.4% of GDP, down somewhat from close to 6% during the late 80's. By 1996, national defense spending had fallen to 3.4% of GDP; over the following years through 2002, it accounted for 3.3%, 3.1%, 3.0%, 3.0%, 3.0%, and 3.3%. We were back up at 4.7% of GDP in 2010 -- still below Cold War levels on a GDP basis, but much higher than the 3% post-Cold-War bottom.

[ASH]

Re: Here comes Russia

I think they mean it!

One take on Russia's declining international relevance:

"This might seem odd when so many are worried about Russia’s neo-imperialist rhetoric. Yet as Mr Trenin convincingly argues, Russia is not a neo-imperialist state, but a post-imperialist one that lacks both vision and appeal, and the economic and human resources for any expansion. With a shrinking population, that accounts for only 2% of the human race, and a declining share of former Soviet trade, 'the Russian empire is over, never to return.' ... The current system which is based, he says, on economic growth without development, capitalism without democracy and great-power policies without international appeal, is unsustainable. Russia’s main threat is not to the outside world, but to itself.

Not that "capitalism without democracy" is in any way fatal to national power, as China demonstrates... Still, it seems to me that economically and politically Russia has more and more in common with the sclerotic petro-powers of the Middle East, and less and less in common with rising great powers like China. The whole "economic growth without development" is the killer. It appears to me that the level of corruption in Russia has reached the threshold where it is a serious impediment to development of a diversified economy (i.e. one not based upon resource extraction and patronage). Such international influence as Russia wields is based upon military and human capital left over from the Soviet era, and the shallow economic power of natural resource income. I don't see much sign of Russia generating new sources of strength.

[Raz]

Re: Here comes Russia

One take on Russia's declining international relevance:

"This might seem odd when so many are worried about Russia’s neo-imperialist rhetoric. Yet as Mr Trenin convincingly argues, Russia is not a neo-imperialist state, but a post-imperialist one that lacks both vision and appeal, and the economic and human resources for any expansion. With a shrinking population, that accounts for only 2% of the human race, and a declining share of former Soviet trade, 'the Russian empire is over, never to return.' ... The current system which is based, he says, on economic growth without development, capitalism without democracy and great-power policies without international appeal, is unsustainable. Russia’s main threat is not to the outside world, but to itself.

Not that "capitalism without democracy" is in any way fatal to national power, as China demonstrates... Still, it seems to me that economically and politically Russia has more and more in common with the sclerotic petro-powers of the Middle East, and less and less in common with rising great powers like China. The whole "economic growth without development" is the killer. It appears to me that the level of corruption in Russia has reached the threshold where it is a serious impediment to development of a diversified economy (i.e. one not based upon resource extraction and patronage). Such international influence as Russia wields is based upon military and human capital left over from the Soviet era, and the shallow economic power of natural resource income. I don't see much sign of Russia generating new sources of strength.

We were co-host parents for two fine young Russian boys between 2002-2007: one from Ryazan, the other from Lipetsk. They had scholarships to a college here where they majored in Chemistry and are now scheduled to receive their Doctorates in May 2112 - one from Georgia Tech and the other from the University of Washington in Seattle..

The stories they tell of corruption in Russia is incredible and very disheartening for them. They say that the Russian military is nothing compared to Soviet times.

The father of a young Ukranian lady that we know through our church is a reserve officer in their army. I've taken him to dinner many times over the past five years and he paints such a dismal picture of corruption there I don't see how they will ever build much of an economy. He says that if nothing changes within five to ten years Ukraine will have no military to speak of.

[skidder]

Re: Here comes Russia

What kind of a flaming ******* asshole would go forward and mutate a virus to kill half the world? What organization would fund this insanity? Someone please eradicate this douche bag and his family!

[oddlots]

Re: Here comes Russia

Here's hoping Ash, but it occurs to me that powers in decline are perhaps more dangerous than those who are still teathing.

I actually have some sympathy for Russia. They suffered a lost decade in the 90's with really atrocious pain associated with "restructuring" that largely went completely ignored in the west, so I'm not entirely surprised that they emerged angry, hostile and solidly behind an intellectual-thug like Putin. (That he's an intellectual-thug still says something of their judgement.) But ultimately they also seem to be playing by a rule-book that's 20 years out of date. I would not want to be stuck with two pawns (Syria and Iran) in a middle east that has been re-made in the last year, especially when even those dependant on Russian gas supplies - Turkey - seem to regard them as an irrelevance.

I would be very happy to think that they will reap nothing but irrelevance from the slide [edit: back into?] into autocracy.

Regardless, thanks for the facts and figures.

[ASH]

Re: Here comes Russia

Here's hoping Ash, but it occurs to me that powers in decline are perhaps more dangerous than those who are still teathing.

The way I see it, Russia is more "declined" than "in decline" -- at least it's pretty far along in the process; I think the US is "in decline" but not too far advanced in that state. I'd agree that former great powers can be dangerous, but I think powers "in decline" pose a different category of danger than those that are already far "declined". In my view, a great power like the US that is early in its decline is more apt to fight wars in defense of its threatened dominance, directly applying its still-potent power in ways that could have long-term impacts on the world. That type of power poses the danger of large-scale conflict -- for instance, if one day we decide to shoot it out with China over the matter of regional hegemony in the western Pacific, rather than discretely retiring once it becomes something closer to an even contest. In contrast, a formerly-great power that is far along in decline, like Russia, no longer has a complete set of tools with which to change the world -- for instance: a formidable nuclear deterrent but hollow conventional forces; a seat on the UN security council but few powerful allies, little influence over the shape of major international institutions, and no compelling vision of the world around which to build a far-reaching alliance. Such resources are unequal to executing grand geo-strategic plans, and such declined powers are more likely to make their presence felt on the world stage by leveraging the vestiges of their legacy power to achieve tactical victories. In other words, a power like Russia doesn't go toe-to-toe militarily with the West, because the only element of its military power that is still world class is its strategic nuclear forces. Instead (as suggested by Mega above), it tips the risk calculations of its adversaries by providing advanced Soviet-era military hardware to their less advanced foes, affecting the freedom of competitors to act, yet avoiding a direct contest of strength. (The S-300 was first deployed in 1979, and is another example of the family silver left over from better times.) So although Russia can still influence the world, its capacity to do so is fading, and the tools at its disposal are better suited to extorting concessions from the West, or spoiling the West's initiatives, rather than actively creating a world order to its liking.

I actually have some sympathy for Russia. ...

I would be very happy to think that they will reap nothing but irrelevance from the slide back into into autocracy.

I have enormous sympathy for Russia; I feel they've had a long run of bad luck when it comes to government: neither the Tsars nor the Commissars nor their more recent heirs created systems that were great to live under. I see no need for Russia to follow anyone else's political model, but there's eventually got to be a Russian solution that serves its people better. If they eventually find it, they've got an enormous resource-filled land to exploit. They're blessed with natural riches and many brilliant and determined individuals, but they're too often led by thugs.

[makimanos]

Re: Here comes Russia

The present economic situation along with overpopulation justifies a war. It will start for sure with Iran
but the end isn't obvious. meanwhile Alaska's HAARP looks to be ready. And in Tel Aviv there is an enormous
biological arsenal mostly overlooked. Russia has to adapt.

[c1ue]

Re: Here comes Russia

Such international influence as Russia wields is based upon military and human capital left over from the Soviet era, and the shallow economic power of natural resource income. I don't see much sign of Russia generating new sources of strength.

I quite agree - while Russia is still a large nation, it has never been particularly wealthy in pure economic terms nor is it highly populous as might be compared to China/India/Brazil.

On the other hand, many people seem to forget that Russia is very much a first world nation in intellectual terms. That a xenophobic, Arctic, and historically backward nation was able to thrust itself onto the world stage is a testimony to supreme effort on the part of the Russian people.

In contrast, a formerly-great power that is far along in decline, like Russia, no longer has a complete set of tools with which to change the world -- for instance: a formidable nuclear deterrent but hollow conventional forces; a seat on the UN security council but few powerful allies, little influence over the shape of major international institutions, and no compelling vision of the world around which to build a far-reaching alliance.

I'd say that from a national security standpoint, I'd far rather be Russia than China.

China still has to fear the US' military; Russia does not.

Russia's conventional forces in the early Cold War days were nullified by US nuclear weapons, why then is the converse today so much different?

The purpose of a military is two-fold: to prevent outside military attacks, and to project power.

Russia has never particularly been interested in colonies - it has always been primarily focused on defense. Unlike Europe, Russia has more than enough open spaces as well as resources to not have to search abroad for more.

It is in fact a condemnation of the United States, that despite a superabundance of fertile land and natural resources, that its consumption still forces the United States to go abroad to seek more.

The father of a young Ukranian lady that we know through our church is a reserve officer in their army. I've taken him to dinner many times over the past five years and he paints such a dismal picture of corruption there I don't see how they will ever build much of an economy. He says that if nothing changes within five to ten years Ukraine will have no military to speak of.

The Ukraine isn't Russia. For one thing, it doesn't have the energy nor did the Ukraine have much of the technological development, manufacturing, or anything else. The Ukraine was/is farmland and pipelines.

How much of a military do you think Kansas would have were it split off from the rest of the United States?

[Raz]

Re: Here comes Russia

c1ue wrote: "The Ukraine isn't Russia. For one thing, it doesn't have the energy nor did the Ukraine have much of the technological development, manufacturing, or anything else. The Ukraine was/is farmland and pipelines.

How much of a military do you think Kansas would have were it split off from the rest of the United States?"

I know all those facts. Here's another one: From 1946 - 1991 the Ukrainian S.S.R. supplied 22% of Soviet military manpower.

While the answer to your question is: "Not much", I included the comments of my Ukrainian friend as an addendum to the decline of Russia's military power. They continue to build some excellent military weaponry, but sell it abroad because they can't afford to buy much of it themselves.

[ASH]

Re: Here comes Russia

I'd say that from a national security standpoint, I'd far rather be Russia than China.

China still has to fear the US' military; Russia does not.

Russia's conventional forces in the early Cold War days were nullified by US nuclear weapons, why then is the converse today so much different?

The purpose of a military is two-fold: to prevent outside military attacks, and to project power.

Russia has never particularly been interested in colonies - it has always been primarily focused on defense. Unlike Europe, Russia has more than enough open spaces as well as resources to not have to search abroad for more.

I agree. Russia is secure within its own borders and has relatively little practical motive to reach beyond them. There's security, and then there's empire. My comments about Russia's military speak mainly to the topic of Russia projecting power and influence beyond its borders.

[jk]

Re: Here comes Russia

russia's main foreign policy concerns in recent years have centered on its near-abroad, places like the ukraine and other countries which had "color" revolutions. ukraine looks like it's been reeled back in. there's a reason why the poles are very nervous and would love to have nato forward anti-missile stations on its soil- nothing like the presence of evan just a few real nato troops as a tripwire. other important foreign policy issues are getting europe ever more dependent on russian energy [and building a pipeline under the north sea so that eastern europeans can't turn off the tap] and maneuvering vis a vis the chinese for influence in central asia.