• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Russia in the 21st Century [Superthread]

See Russian (not Putin as such) "nuclear de-escalation" thinking:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=nuclear+de-escalation

Mark
Ottawa
 
Russia’s Interest in and Plans for Decisive Limited Nuclear Use

Less well understood but possibly of greater relevance, however, is Russia’s interest in and development of capabilities for more limited nuclear use. Moscow is aware of its only partial success in fielding a modern conventional military and of that force’s imperfect ability to challenge the forces of the United States and NATO in a broader conflict as well as of the relatively narrow relevance of its strategic nuclear forces in situations short of the apocalyptic. This leaves a significant gap in Russia’s defense posture: left alone, Russia’s conventional forces could be decisively overcome by NATO forces in a plausible conflict over, for instance, the Baltics or other countries in Eastern Europe. Such a scenario would likely fall considerably short of a situation in which Moscow would see the utility in initiating a general nuclear strike against NATO, a strike that would essentially inevitably result in a comparable massive Western response. Russia could therefore find itself exposed to Western coercion if this vulnerability were left unaddressed .

To deal with this problem, Russia has for a number of years seen the value of seeking to extend credible nuclear deterrence down the ladder of escalation to scenarios below the extreme in order to deter the West from seeking to exploit this potential conventional vulnerability as leverage. As Russian expert Yuri Federov has outlined, “n the strategic environment since the end of the Cold War, instead of massive use of nuclear weapons planned by the Soviets during the Cold War, [the] Russian military command [has] sought to develop a method of limited use of nuclear weapons that will enable them to deter or stop [an] attack of superior conventional forces without escalation into total nuclear exchange or large-scale regional war.” .Moscow has occasionally described the objective of such nuclear employment as “de-escalation of aggression,” an approach sometimes termed an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.” . An influential 2003 official document, for instance, described “[d]e-escalation of aggression” as the effort to “forc[e] the enemy to halt military action by a threat to deliver or by actual delivery of strikes of varying intensity with reliance on conventional and (or) nuclear weapons.” .Russia appears to see both nuclear weapons of tailored effect and non-nuclear but “strategic” conventional weapons as being of potential use in such scenarios . This strategy is consistent with those of other countries facing a potential adversary possessing stronger conventional forces – NATO in the Cold War and Pakistan vis-à-vis India, for instance  . In accord with this doctrine, Moscow has since the early 1990s made clear that it would resort to using nuclear weapons first .

The precise conditions under which Moscow would employ its nuclear weapons in this fashion are ambiguous – by design. Official Russian statements as to when it would use its nuclear weapons have varied. In its 2000 defense statement, for instance, Moscow adopted a broader set of parameters for such use, apparently prompted by the Western Alliance’s awing display of force unsanctioned by the UN Security Council in Kosovo. This doctrinal statement explicitly extended the intended relevance of Russia’s nuclear arsenal from “global war,” or a “a war against a coalition of powerful states in which sovereignty and [the] very survival of Russia are at stake,” to “regional war,” with the latter defined as “a war with a powerful state or a coalition [namely the United States and NATO], which Russian forces cannot win or terminate on favorable conditions.” . In more colloquial terms, Russia explicitly announced that it was prepared to use nuclear weapons in a major but not total conflict with NATO in which Russia believed it could not prevail.

The most recent (2010 and 2014) official statements of Russia’s military doctrine, however, appeared to narrow Russia’s declaratory policy on nuclear use . With the exception of retaliating against nuclear attack, the 2010 and 2014 white papers suggested that Moscow would confine any first nuclear use to situations of, as in the 2003 paper, “a military conflict involving the utilization of conventional means of attack (a large-scale war or regional war)” but also “imperiling the very existence of the state.” . The last section of the statement seemed to indicate that Russia’s bar for using nuclear weapons in the face of conventional conflict with NATO would be quite high; such a conflict would, the statement appeared to imply, have to threaten the collapse of the state – an undefined but presumably extreme circumstance – before Moscow would reach for its nuclear arsenal .


https://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/russia-s-evolving-nuclear-doctrine-and-its-implications-2016-01
 
Russia expands their reach into space again:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/23/did-russia-just-test-a-weapon-in-space.html

Did Russia Just Test a Weapon in Space?
Vladimir Putin’s regime is asserting itself around the world—and above it, too.
David Axe
DAVID AXE
12.23.16 1:02 AM ET

Russia isn't done screwing with the United States in 2016.
On Dec. 16, the Russian military reportedly tested what appears to be an anti-satellite weapon—a rocket that can boost into low orbit and smash into enemy spacecraft.

The test could be the latest sign of Russia’s intention, and improving ability, to threaten America’s hundreds of government and private spacecraft—and chip away at the United States’ military and commercial advantage in space.

It might also be the latest provocation from a Russian regime that increasingly denies any responsibility for its most destabilizing moves. That’s how Moscow can get away with hacking elections in the United States and other Western countries and invading Ukraine, among other attacks on global order.

The apparent anti-satellite (ASAT) test largely escaped public notice. The Washington Free Beacon was the first to report on the weapon’s trial, on Dec. 21—attributing the information to unnamed U.S. government sources. CNN also pointed out the test, again citing anonymous U.S. officials.

Capt. Nicholas Mercurio, a spokesman for the 14th U.S. Air Force, which oversees space systems, declined to specifically comment on the reported Russian test. “We monitor missile launches around the globe,” Mercurio told The Daily Beast, “but as a matter of policy we don’t normally discuss intelligence specific to those launches.”

For the anti-satellite test, the Russians have a tidy cover story—that the rocket isn’t actually an anti-satellite weapon, or ASAT. Instead, it’s a meant for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles.

That is to say, the rocket that Russia tested on Dec. 16 could be a defensive rocket-killer, rather than an offensive satellite-killer. “My take is that it could be either,” Pavel Podvig, an independent expert on Russian strategic forces, told The Daily Beast via email. “It is difficult to say at this point.”

But in fact, there’s no meaningful difference between an anti-satellite weapon and a defensive missile-interceptor. The same basic hardware can do both jobs.

“The only difference between a hit-to-kill interceptor for missile defense and one for low-Earth-orbit ASAT is going to be in the software,” Jeffrey Lewis, who helps lead nonproliferation programs at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told The Daily Beast via email.
In 2008, for example, the U.S. Navy tweaked the code on one of its ship-based SM-3 missile-interceptors and successfully targeted an old U.S. satellite in low orbit.

The nature of the Russian test underscores the likelihood that the rocket in question is a satellite-killer. The rocket reportedly blasted off from a base in central Russia and arced into low orbit. There was no debris, according to CNN—meaning the missile likely targeted a point in space instead of aiming for, say, a decommissioned Russian satellite.

But the fact that the rocket targeted fixed coordinates in space indicates that it’s meant for destroying spacecraft. “Shooting at a point in space is useless from a missile-defense point of view,” Lewis explained.

That’s because incoming ballistic missiles move quickly. A missile-interceptor must be able to maneuver rapidly to match the target’s constantly-changing position. A satellite, by contrast, moves comparatively slowly and predictably. “You don’t know where a missile is going to be,” Lewis said, “but you do know where a satellite is going to be.”

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has become the world leader in “asymmetric” warfare: targeting its enemies surreptitiously and in ways that avoid direct confrontation. After sending “Little Green Men”—troops without official uniforms—to invade Ukraine’s Crimea region, Russian forces pummeled Ukrainian troops with artillery that fired from the Russian side of the border with Ukraine… and denied doing it.

Likewise, Russia has targeted Ukraine and the tiny states along NATO’s eastern border with relentless cyberattacks. In late 2015, Russian hackers disrupted Ukraine’s power grid. (And another substation near Kiev was recently hit, although its unclear by whom.) The Kremlin hides its cyberattacks behind murky, non-state groups or individual hackers such as the notorious Guccifer 2.0. He’s the self-proclaimed “Romanian” hacker who claimed to hit the Democratic National Committee—only to be exposed as a Russian.

If the ASAT tests are successful and Russia deploys the weapon, its potential targets could include the surveillance, positioning, and communications satellites that the United States relies on to wage war—and that the American economy counts on for navigation, television broadcasts, and even mobile gaming.

The United States possesses nearly half of the world’s roughly 1,000 operational satellites, many more than any other individual country. Both Russia and China have been working hard in recent years to counter this numerical advantage.
In a 2007 ASAT test, China lobbed a rocket at a defunct weather satellite, smashing it into thousands of pieces—many of which remain in orbit and regularly endanger manned and unmanned spacecraft.

Both Russia and China have deployed small “inspection” satellites that, officially, exist to maneuver close to and monitor other spacecraft but which, with a simple command, could collide with U.S. satellites and hijack, damage, or destroy them.

For the record, the Pentagon also deploys inspection satellites that could threaten other spacecraft.
In parallel with its development of possible killer satellites, Russia has been hard at work on its Nudol rocket system, which is—officially—a missile-interceptor designed to protect Russian cities from nuclear bombardment. Moscow wants Nudol to replace decades-old Gazelle and Gorgon defensive missiles.

Nudol’s capabilities remain something of a mystery outside of the Russian government. If the Kremlin intends Nudol to replace Gazelle, then Nudol might not have applications in space. But if Nudol is supposed to replace the much more powerful Gorgon, then Nudol could pull double-duty as a missile-interceptor and a satellite-killer.

“Gazelle was not an ASAT threat, as its range was only a few miles,” Brian Weeden, a space exert at the Secure World Foundation in Colorado, told The Daily Beast via email. “Gorgon was likely an ASAT threat because it could reach into low Earth orbit.”
If Nudol matches Gorgon’s capabilities, then it’s possible the new missile-interceptor formed the basis of the rocket in the apparent ASAT test on Dec. 16.

Adapting Nudol to kill spacecraft makes sense. Instead of designing a new ASAT weapon from scratch—a potentially laborious process—Russia could simply modify a rocket it’s been working on for years.

The accelerating pace of Russian and Chinese ASAT developments—of which the Dec. 16 test is only the most recent—has kept some U.S. officials up at night. Air Force general John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told Congress in September that Russia and China are developing offensive space weapons faster than the United States is developing countermeasures.

“We are moving much slower in certain areas than our adversaries,” Hyten said. “We need our industries and our acquisition process to move faster.”
 
A Russian aircraft headed for Syria crashed into th Black Sea with 91 souls.There was a crew of 8 and the rest were members of a Russian Army choir.

https://www.rt.com/news/371623-russian-tu-154-disappears-radars/

Nine journalists along with musicians from the army choir of the Russian Armed Forces, the Alexandrov Ensemble, were aboard the plane, the ministry confirmed. The musicians were due to take part in a New Year’s concert at the Russian airbase in Latakia, Syria.

“Alexandrov Ensemble singers made up the majority of the missing passengers of the Tu-154,” a defense source told RIA, adding that 90 members of the choir were supposed to be flown to Syria on two Russian military planes.
 
tomahawk6 said:
A Russian aircraft headed for Syria crashed into th Black Sea with 91 souls.There was a crew of 8 and the rest were members of a Russian Army choir.

Setting aside politics, the choir was going there to entertain the troops and not take part in the fighting.  RIP.
 
Dimsum said:
Setting aside politics, the choir was going there to entertain the troops and not take part in the fighting.  RIP.

I didnt say they were going to fight.In fact there was a second aircraft with the other half of the choir.They were on a morale tour. The choir is quite good.
 
tomahawk6 said:
I didnt say they were going to fight.

I didn't say you were suggesting that at all - we are both agreeing on their reason for travel.
 
You too stop agreeing so aggressively; it's Christmas (or PMJT's birthday.....William the Conqueror's coronation....whatever).

:subbies:
 
Man, the Red Army Choir? That's brutal. :(

Given the location, proximity to shore, and the alleged spread of wreckage and bodies, this may have been a shoot down.
 
I don't know if we can rule out other issues yet. The aircraft had just taken off from Sochi which is in Russian territory and headed out across the Black Sea.
 
tomahawk6 said:
I didnt say they were going to fight.In fact there was a second aircraft with the other half of the choir.They were on a morale tour. The choir is quite good.

I saw them in concert at the Queen E theatre in Vancouver in the 70s. I was so pumped I ran back stage and had them all sign the jacket of the 33 LP record I was clutching like a new baby...

Kalinka... my favourite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jsXGLysCU
 
Old Sweat said:
I don't know if we can rule out other issues yet. The aircraft had just taken off from Sochi which is in Russian territory and headed out across the Black Sea.

Definitely not ruling anything out, just saying there's cause for concern. Low altitude on a predictable flight path, routine aircraft operations, holiday of religious significance to the West (ISIS may not necessary realize there's a distinction with Russian religious holidays), and so on.
 
Old Sweat said:
I don't know if we can rule out other issues yet. The aircraft had just taken off from Sochi which is in Russian territory and headed out across the Black Sea.

While anything is possible, the aircraft has a long history of crashes and I believe it has actually been withdrawn from commercial service.

Here is a link from the Aviation Safety Network that lists all 109 accidents involving the Tu-154.

Another link with accident related statistics (including causes of crashes, number of fatalities, aircraft flight operation at time of accident, etc). Note that you a have less than a 32 % chance of surviving an accident involving the TU-154.

 
I think the Russian angle is mechanical failure but we dont know yet if the pilot had a chance to call an inflight emergency. The pilot was in contact with the tower at the time of the crash. That may change as the inquiry progresses.

An example of the quality of the music. A tragedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ria6UZbSg

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/12/25/russian-plane-crash/amp/
 
My favorite song and video is the VDV airborne song !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlQ6KqTlyfk
 
jollyjacktar said:
Another thing to blame the Kurds for.
Heck, maybe even the Ukrainians (to stretch paranoia to an extreme - although there's gotta be some shaudenfreude in Kiev over the death of a bunch of Russian troops as well as a doctor who worked on the sepraratist side of the conflict).

A few links from the RUS mil Info-machine (all in Russian)...
Also, a few maps from what looks like a German-based aviation safety/tracking page post ....
2015-12-25_RA-85572_Tu154_RuMil@Black-Sea_MAP-SKYVCTR.png

2015-12-25_RA-85572_Tu154_RuMil@Black-Sea_MAP-IVAO1.png

2015-12-25_RA-85572_Tu154_RuMil@Black-Sea_MAP2.png
(no attribution for the proposed route, so caveat lector)
 
Now for a little trip down Memory Lane to look at what Putin calls the greatest disaster of the 20th century, aka, the Fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago today.

25 Years Ago – The last day of the Soviet Union (December 25, 1991)

Posted by William A. Jacobson   Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 8:45pm

President George H.W. Bush in address to the nation: “Every American can take pride in this victory”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5gHfPMlaY4

On December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachov resigned as President of the Soviet Union. The red flag was lowered at the Kremlin, and the next day, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

The BBC reported:

    Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union for almost seven years and executive president for nearly two, has stepped down from office. He announced his resignation in a 10 minute speech, broadcast live on television, as the Soviet Union passed into history.

    It has been replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

    The 60-year-old appeared solemn but composed.

  “Due to the situation which has evolved as a result of the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent states I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of president of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” he said.

    He said he was resigning on a matter of principle, adding the decision to dismantle the state should have been made “on the basis of popular will”.


The NY Times reported:

    Mr. Gorbachev’s moment of farewell was stark. Kremlin guards were preparing to lower the red union flag for the last time. In minutes, Mr. Gorbachev would sign over the nuclear missile launching codes for safeguarding to Mr. Yeltsin, his rival and successor as the dominant politician of this agonized land….

    The flag was lowered from its floodlit perch at 7:32 tonight. A muted moment of awe was shared by the few pedestrians crossing Red Square.

    ‘Why are you laughing at Lenin?’ a man, obviously inebriated against the winter cold, suddenly shouted in the square. He reeled near Lenin’s tomb.

    The mausoleum was dusky pink against the evergreen trees outside the Kremlin walls. Within, for all the sense of history wheeling in the night sky, the embalmed remains of the Communst patriarch still rested.

    The drunk was instantly shushed by a passer-by who cautioned that ‘foreigners’ were watching and he should not embarrass the reborn Russia.

    ‘Foreigners?’ laughed another Muscovite. ‘Who cares? They’re the ones who are feeding us these days.’


President George H.W. Bush gave a televised speech that evening:

    Good evening, and Merry Christmas to all Americans across our great country.

    During these last few months, you and I have witnessed one of the greatest dramas of the twentieth century — the historic and revolutionary transformation of a totalitarian dictatorship, the Soviet Union, and the liberation of its peoples. As we celebrate Christmas — this day of peace and hope — I thought we should take just a few minutes to reflect on what these events mean for us, as Americans.

    For over 40 years, the United States led the West in the struggle against Communism and the threat it posed to our most precious values. This struggle shaped the lives of all Americans. It forced all nations to live under the specter of nuclear destruction. From Union, a Commonwealth

    That confrontation is now over. The nuclear threat — while far from gone — is receding. Eastern Europe is free. The Soviet Union itself is no more. This is a victory for democracy and freedom. It’s a victory for the moral force of our values. Every American can take pride in this victory, from the millions of men and women who have served our country in uniform, to millions of Americans who supported their country and a strong defense under nine presidents….


(I’ve been unable to find a video of President Bush’s televised address, if anyone finds it, please post a link in the comments and I’ll add it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1225.html

That victory, of course, was several decades in the making, at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives fighting global communist expansionism. It also was a victory born of strength, not submission.

It was a victory opposed by Western leftists who sought to undermine the will to fight at every turn and in every place they could.

Leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were denigrated and mocked as warmongers and fools. Thankfully, they and other stood strong when weakness was the politically easier position.

There’s a lesson there, as we move forward to confront and defend against new and old foes.

Article Link
 
tomahawk6 said:
My favorite song and video is the VDV airborne song !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlQ6KqTlyfk

...and I thought you were talking about this VDV song... >:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSj5RbWtR7c
 
One black box has been found.Images at the link as recovery operations continue.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article123067489.html
 
Back
Top