Russian president announces rearmament plan

[jannyk]

Source: BBC

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Moscow will begin a comprehensive military rearmament from 2011.

"The primary task is to increase the combat readiness of our forces, first of all our strategic nuclear forces," he told top military officers.

In explaining the move, Mr Medvedev said Nato was pursuing military expansion near Russia's borders.

Last year, the Kremlin set out plans to increase spending on Russia's armed forces over the next two years.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7947824.stm

---

Whatever it is, it ain't good news. Is this how Russia is going to 'stimulate' its economy. Say it isn't so - please!!!

[pampango]

1. Chicken and egg? Didn't east and central Europe want to join NATO because they were afraid

Russia would rearm and pose a threat to them again?

[DFW]

2. They don't have the money for it any more than we do.

They'll put on a big show (they always went for stuff like that), but they won't be
invading anyone bigger than South Ossetia any time soon. Neighbors like the Ukraine
are far more terrified by getting their gas shut off in the winter than they are by
the prospect of the Red Army marching on Kiev. If the Russian government spends all
its resources again on military adventures, while neglecting its tiny-but-growing
middle class and its huge population of just-barely-getting-by people, its greatest
threat will be from within, not from without.

[Matilda]

3. I see Putin pulling the strings here.

He really is old-style KGB.

This is the mindset that got the Soviet Union into so much trouble that
Gorbachev was forced to pull the plug as the only means of getting the
country onto a viable track.

Good ol' "Putty-put" really is an evil bastard.

[amandabeech]

22. Yes, I had hopes for Putin at first.

He seemed like someone who'd seen it all and wanted it to stop.

Unfortunately, he just wanted to do the same stuff, only his way.

[hack89]

4. Too bad they can't pay for it. nt

[trthnd4jstc]

5. Let's see what I have learned: Jingoism and Racism can help the Ruling Class

Militarism and Imperialism creates a sense of economic activity. People go to work, not realizing the drain on the economy. Putin is putting into place George Bush's economic policy. Spend on the military to create an economic boost. It is all a load of $#!t. We need to end the rampage of nationalism, militarism, and imperialism. The US, Russian, China, Great Britian, and France, and many other nations all wreak havoc on the working people, and the rest of the planet, just so the elites of these and other countries can live lives of leisure, and dominate over the rest of life. All of these people need to be placed in prison. We need a global democracy, place the military in the hands of a United Nations Peace Force, end militarism, and imperialism, from the continued destruction that they wreak upon the rest of us. Why Not? Most people simply wish to live their lives and support their families. The elites wish for us to kill ourselves off, and for themselves to dominate over the rest of life. They are not better than us, and they have no greater right than anyone else. F#ck them.

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. Great news because the last 'rearmament' worked SO WELL for Russia! The Cold

War was two fat old men racing to get to the top of the hill. The USSR guy had a heart attack first and collapsed. That's how the US supposedly
"won" the Cold War. Some victory. And our Pentagon budget is STILL over 500 BILLION every damn year as if we're still competing with Moscow!

[Tempest]

7. Russia made no such rearmament during the Cold War

You are completely wrong about the Cold War.

It was U.S. propaganda that built up the USSR's military. USSR's military spending stayed steady before and during the Cold War. There was no build up.

The USSR failed because it's economic system was fatally flawed and couldn't deliver to market the fruits of its production.

I recommend reading some non-rightwing books on the Cold War and get to the truth.

[hack89]

14. That doesn't make a lot of sense

the Soviet Union introduced many new weapons systems during the Cold War - at it's heyday in the mid 1970s the Red Army was a potent and modern force that was the equal of NATO (and in some respects superior). That kind of research and procurement took a lot of money. Since their equipment grew more sophisticated and high tech, it had to be more expensive. If they were level funded that meant they would have been forced to buy fewer planes, tanks and ships due to higher unit cost. But they didn't - the size of the military stayed the same.

I would have to see some hard evidence to accept your assertion.

[Tempest]

17. Here's a book you should read

Soviet Defense Spending: A History of CIA Estimates, 1950–1990
by Noel E. Firth and James H. Noren


The USSR made no large increase in military spending during the cold war. Especially when you look at the increase in the U.S. during the same years.

[hack89]

21. That book doesn't say what you think it says.

The only honest conclusion one can make is that calculating Soviet military expenditures was difficult, was of questionable accuracy early in the Cold war, and changed significantly as new methods were used. There are no consistent methods or results that allow you to compare budgets over the 40 years of the Cold War.

It should be said at the outset that some of the issues surrounding the estimates of Soviet defense spending are, literally speaking, irresolvable. For reasons unlikely to be of interest to diplomatic historians (and thus not dealt with here), the pricing method selected--whether to use rubles or dollars, which base year to use--can have an enormous impact on the final result. There is, furthermore, no simple answer to the questions of which year or which currency to use; different comparisons of defense spending require different methods. It is these issues about valuation which led to most of the political headaches about CIA estimates.

The next chapter documents the increasing use of quantitative techniques in national security studies of the 1960s, especially as the Pentagon absorbed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's "whiz kids." The increasing demands on CIA resources, not least from the newly empowered Defense Intelligence Agency, kept CIA analysts running from project to project and often led them to neglect to update the price and cost figures in the CIA database (pp. 37, 41). Even more time-consuming was the first effort to establish the Strategic Cost Analysis Model (SCAM) on a computer system; the authors imply that analysts were too busy SCAMming to conduct basic research on military prices (p. 51). These resource-allocations decisions would come to haunt the Agency in the mid-1970s, as a combination of external pressures, new data (aided especially by a key defector) and internal works forced a major revision of the defense burden (that is, the percentage of the Soviet economy devoted to the military). This crisis comprises the climax of the book, as one might expect when the protagonist is a data series. The crisis sparked heated public debate when the CIA announced that their earlier estimates of Soviet defense spending at 6-8 percent of GNP lowballed the burden by as much as half; the revised estimated burden ranged from 11-13 percent

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2967

[FailureToCommunicate]

15. You say I am completely wrong about the Cold War. If I am then so are Sec. of

Defense Gates, Mikael Gorbachev, General Abizaid, Graham Allison, most experts, authors and historians. You and I could argue about whether the Soviet build up was motivated more by politics, ideology, or strategic interests, but the facts of their huge
increase in military hardware, troop number and associated costs, missile development, and space program are hard to dismiss. Sure, there was so much secrecy it was difficult to establish actual expenditures but most expert estimates did mostly agree
that those costs were huge, growing, and a much larger portion of Soviet GDP then in the US and Nato allies.

What you and I could agree on is that US weapons makers always inflated the estimated threat from the Soviets to justify massive and very profitable build up of weapon systems here. The US military budget is larger than all other countries of earth combined and it continues to stay funded at Cold War levels -especially under Bush's 'war on terror' - and bleed our economy. The true cost to Americans of decades of buying useless -now rusting -weapon systems instead of road, rails and bridges, etc. is becoming
sadly apparent.

Meanwhile, because of 'loose nukes' and the desperate situation of former Soviet stockpiles of nuclear materials (that may be sold by desperate soldier), we're actually LESS SAFE from nuclear disaster then during the Cold War!!

This is all very bleak, but I assure you my knowledge is not from "right wing books" I truly wish I WERE wrong and believe this is all just a government hoax. I'd, we'd all, sleep better at night.

[Tempest]

18. See my post #17

The CIA perfected the estimating of USSR's expenditures and they weren't close to what was being politicized by the government.

[FailureToCommunicate]

20. You reference one book? Okay, you and the two coauthors of that book are the only

ones who believe the Soviet Union military buildup during the Cold War was all just a 'Potemkin village' and not real. The CIA may have had some talented folks
but they couldn't have faked the armies marching into Prague, or the Soviet weapons all over the War in Vietnam, or blasted into space. Faked photos? Not bloody likely.
(And yes, I know the military parades in Red Square were made to seem longer by having the same jets fly over and over blah, blah, blah...)

How is climate change with you? Is that all just a plot by the CIA also?

I'm willing to hear your arguments if you can reference more than one book about the CIA.

[iam]

8. cold war

mission accomplished. The first cold war was handsomely profitable for the military-industrial complex, and this one promises to be just as rewarding for conservatives. Bravo bush-cheney, well done.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Russia announces rearmament plan

Source: BBC News

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Moscow will begin a comprehensive military rearmament from 2011.

Mr Medvedev said the primary task would be to "increase the combat readiness of forces, first of all our strategic nuclear forces".

Explaining the move, he cited concerns over Nato expansion near Russia's borders and regional conflicts.

>

Russia will spend nearly $140bn (£94.5bn) on buying arms up until 2011.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7947824.stm

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Perfect time for us to cut our forces back I guess.

[Idealism]

11. We still outspend all other countries in the world combined on our military.

We could cut 10% off and still outspend everyone else combined. Even a 50% reduction will still see us outspending every other country on earth, albeit not collectively.

[skoalyman]

12. you'd think with that kind of spending we'd at least have laser

cannons and warp drive already:shrug:

[Idealism]

13. The money spent on "space weapons" exceeds $100 billion

and no lasers or warp speed yet. :(

[FailureToCommunicate]

16. Warp drive as we all know, was invented in 2062 by Zefrem Cochrane in his

"Phoenix" spaceship - (but only just barely!)

[goforit]

19. Obama continues the Bush agenda on everything..... So....Here comes Russia!

Way to go Obama!!!

Let Emmmanuel keep making all your stupid ass decisions and we'll be at WWIII in no time!

[TheLastMohican]

23. I don't understand what's this noise is all about?

Russia is rearming, it should definetely do so, as most arms are middle 70's material. What's the beef?
And US is still acting as a complete ass here with Madleine Albright opening its mouth all too often.