John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would think sanctions likely effect Su-57 production to a much great degree than T-14 production. As for serial production, is four per year due to sanctions, money, or design issues?
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,622
Nomenclature confusion. Serial doesn't mean mass production. It just means it's being produced in accordance with a serial technical passport. As opposed to prototype production where every aircraft might be slightly different. Serial production has nothing to do with volume, though typically you won't see mass production until serial production starts.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
@swerve , I will reply on your comments in China thread in here.
You are comparing what should happen in 90's after USSR demise and what happens now. What happens now is just part of consequences on chain reaction in 90's. Why don't you see that, when even some in West analysts already see that also.
This is not a blame to Russia or West. This is just part of consequences on chain reaction on Geopolitical path that bring us now on present situation. When the path in 90's don't create new arrangements that meet both West and Russia interest, then they begin to create another path. Why even now some in West still think that the path the West carve will be the same with Russian interest, thus Russian will react the same ?
Your response is only see on the West value and interest. You claim Russia want to be treated not equal and more on special. You seems to see that Russia want West to "bend the knees", while Russian seems to think the other way around. Thus as non West and Russian perspective, I'm just saying this is why the common Euro Security arrangements in 90's can not be meet. Whether Putin or some one else in charge of Russia, the divergence path will not create much different results in the end.
Russia expect NATO to be dissolve or Change their nature in order to meet Russia interest. West want NATO still the same or even enlarging to encompasses more European that meet their criterea (and become part of collective West idea and thinking). That's means from the 90's any effort to meet the common ground for both West and Russia can't meet from beginning. So both create their own path, and what happens now is just part of that consequences.
If somehow now both Russia and China path converging, is also consequences on diverging path that West has with Russia and China. Multipolar world order rather then Unipolar world order under Western (more precise US 'idea') after end old cold war, is also consequences of that divergence path. Path of new Geopolitical rivalry order.
It is now that's not clear yet as I mentioned on other thread, whether this new Geopolitical order will:
1. Create Cold War 2.0,
2. Create new commercial rivalry order,
3. WW3.
# 2 is I believe more preferable and I do sense what many outside Collective West and Allies hope to come out. What clear now status quo under Unipolar dominate by US/West as after cold war (1.0) dissolve, will have to change in to that three potential paths.
You are comparing what should happen in 90's after USSR demise and what happens now. What happens now is just part of consequences on chain reaction in 90's. Why don't you see that, when even some in West analysts already see that also.
This is not a blame to Russia or West. This is just part of consequences on chain reaction on Geopolitical path that bring us now on present situation. When the path in 90's don't create new arrangements that meet both West and Russia interest, then they begin to create another path. Why even now some in West still think that the path the West carve will be the same with Russian interest, thus Russian will react the same ?
Your response is only see on the West value and interest. You claim Russia want to be treated not equal and more on special. You seems to see that Russia want West to "bend the knees", while Russian seems to think the other way around. Thus as non West and Russian perspective, I'm just saying this is why the common Euro Security arrangements in 90's can not be meet. Whether Putin or some one else in charge of Russia, the divergence path will not create much different results in the end.
Russia expect NATO to be dissolve or Change their nature in order to meet Russia interest. West want NATO still the same or even enlarging to encompasses more European that meet their criterea (and become part of collective West idea and thinking). That's means from the 90's any effort to meet the common ground for both West and Russia can't meet from beginning. So both create their own path, and what happens now is just part of that consequences.
If somehow now both Russia and China path converging, is also consequences on diverging path that West has with Russia and China. Multipolar world order rather then Unipolar world order under Western (more precise US 'idea') after end old cold war, is also consequences of that divergence path. Path of new Geopolitical rivalry order.
It is now that's not clear yet as I mentioned on other thread, whether this new Geopolitical order will:
1. Create Cold War 2.0,
2. Create new commercial rivalry order,
3. WW3.
# 2 is I believe more preferable and I do sense what many outside Collective West and Allies hope to come out. What clear now status quo under Unipolar dominate by US/West as after cold war (1.0) dissolve, will have to change in to that three potential paths.
Last edited:
Boatteacher
Active Member
What you haven't addressed is that Russia, and particularily Putin (but I'm happy to accept his cronies too), have been very blunt and obvious about their desire to create a new Russian empire by expansion into and annexure of their neighbours. This is not recent
Everything else, all the complaints about NATO and what have you, are just deflective noise.
What are you suggesting the west does about that? Just let it happen? If so where does it stop?
Nato was all but dead until Russia went on the offensive, and even for sometime after. The deflection is transparent for what it is.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Where in any of my Post I'm complaining about West ? Where in any of my Post I even suggest NATO not doing anything ?
What I'm saying what happen now is part of consequence from the 90's. So if any in West complaining on Russia now, is moot arguments. This is part of consequence, and if any thinking that West or NATO caught unprepared, where they should not be.
The failures to reach common goal in 90's or even early 2000 from both sides, should prepared both sides the consequences of that failures. This divergence path already goes to eventuall conflicts of interest. That's the wholle point of my posts.
Again read my posts (including on the other thread where this argument begin). I don't blame either Russia or West/NATO. The failures in 90's to embrace each other and come out with common Euro security arrangement, lead to divergence in path. This lead toward present conditions. So both sides should be prepared since beginning of this century, as this is part of potential consequences if you have divergence on securities interest.
I don't suggest anyone to back down. That's political decision on each sides. However when you already in divergence path, and either: You find Compromise, or goes to conflicts.
What I'm saying what happen now is part of consequence from the 90's. So if any in West complaining on Russia now, is moot arguments. This is part of consequence, and if any thinking that West or NATO caught unprepared, where they should not be.
The failures to reach common goal in 90's or even early 2000 from both sides, should prepared both sides the consequences of that failures. This divergence path already goes to eventuall conflicts of interest. That's the wholle point of my posts.
Again read my posts (including on the other thread where this argument begin). I don't blame either Russia or West/NATO. The failures in 90's to embrace each other and come out with common Euro security arrangement, lead to divergence in path. This lead toward present conditions. So both sides should be prepared since beginning of this century, as this is part of potential consequences if you have divergence on securities interest.
I don't suggest anyone to back down. That's political decision on each sides. However when you already in divergence path, and either: You find Compromise, or goes to conflicts.
I was talking about a hypothetical scenario in which Russia had changed fundamentally as a society after the cold war. A lot of if's: If they had stopped their imperial ambitions of conquest (which, keep in mind, includes loot, rape and murder, demonstated in Ukraine but also in e.g. the Baltics when they were annexed decades ago), if they had become a law-abiding society, yes then they could have joined NATO. It was hypothetical! Clearly Russia did not change much.
However there are examples of societies changing dramatically, and sometimes very rapidly. I will give you 3 examples of the former, and 2 of the latter. Then I will give you two societies that have not changed much in spite of at least some efforts in that direction.
The two that changed radically but also very fast: (West) Germany and Japan after WW2. Both turned from nazi/fascist brutal invaders, to pacifist, law-abiding societies. Germany is a member of NATO, and had Japan been in Europe I am sure they would have been as well.
The third society that also changed but not so fast was Great Britain. Just like Russia, GB had an empire. However they gave up the empire and gradually changed and is now for the most part (perhaps with the notable exception of some sporting events) considered a democratic open society that respects the rule of law and with no ambitions of building an empire with all that entails of looting, raping and murdering the locals.
Two societies that have not changed much: Russia and Afghanistan. The Afghanistan experience shows how difficult "nation building" can be. Many females in Afghanistan embraced the changes that gave them the opportunity to get an education, become more independent, and work. However it seems many of the Afghan males did not like these changes, unfortunately.
One lesson that Europe learned from WW2 was that when it comes to societies that embrace aggressive expansion, appeasement does not work.
As long as Russia does not change, NATO is needed to protect Europe from Russia. There is no other way. It would be immoral but also strategically a huge mistake to sacrifice Eastern Europe just to appease Russia. How would you explain to the parents of a girl in the Baltics that the raping and murder of their daughter was "necessary price" they have to pay to "protect the interests" of the Russian empire? You cannot. And how would it make strategic sense to serve Eastern Europe to the murderous gangs from Russia on a silver platter? It does not.
Africa never had a NATO to dissolve, and never posed a threat to Russia. That did not stop Russia from sending their Wagnerites to Africa to steal, murder and rape.
Russian mercenaries linked to civilian massacres in Mali | Mali | The Guardian
Russian mercenaries leave trail of destruction in the Central African Republic | Financial Times (ft.com)
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
You miss One point, Ananda.
One enormous point, but I understand you cant get It not being European or american.
We dont like Russia.
We fought a 50 year long cold war, with Russia threatening to nuke us on a Daily basis.
" Failure to make an Euro security arrangement " What euro security arrangement?
Russia Is not Europe.
And they're not even west.
They're an incredibly complex eurasian civilization, that has nothing to do with Europe.
The problem, the big problem, Is that you think we want to be " Friends " with Russia.
We dont.
We are supplying Ukraine with billions and billions of weapons because they are doing what we were never able to do in 50 years, fighting Russia.
So, Is Russia attacking a Nation that Is in good relationships with us? Yes.
And they are doing that exactly to hurt us.
Then, lets make It as costly as possible.
They have to pay for what they did to us, bringing war back to Europe After 70 years.
And we Will make them pay a High price, believe me...Whatever It takes.
One enormous point, but I understand you cant get It not being European or american.
We dont like Russia.
We fought a 50 year long cold war, with Russia threatening to nuke us on a Daily basis.
" Failure to make an Euro security arrangement " What euro security arrangement?
Russia Is not Europe.
And they're not even west.
They're an incredibly complex eurasian civilization, that has nothing to do with Europe.
The problem, the big problem, Is that you think we want to be " Friends " with Russia.
We dont.
We are supplying Ukraine with billions and billions of weapons because they are doing what we were never able to do in 50 years, fighting Russia.
So, Is Russia attacking a Nation that Is in good relationships with us? Yes.
And they are doing that exactly to hurt us.
Then, lets make It as costly as possible.
They have to pay for what they did to us, bringing war back to Europe After 70 years.
And we Will make them pay a High price, believe me...Whatever It takes.
It could be easy to believe that Russia is seeking to develop a cultural identity that complies with beliefs held by the Unity party which supports President Putin that conforms with the ideology of Russia's place in the world as a super power , that it regards former Warsaw Pact members who have joined N.A.T.O with suspicion and encroachment of Russia's sphere of influence . a reminder also that in 2008 President Putin told President Bush that" Ukraine was not a real country"
Russia for all of its posturing is a one party state with little tolerance for dissent and certainly the state controls the media ,for all the discussion on Russia and the West and differences perhaps it should be on those in power who control the narrative to the Russian public in what they base their beliefs on
Russia has reasserted state control over the country's major media companies : NPR
Russia for all of its posturing is a one party state with little tolerance for dissent and certainly the state controls the media ,for all the discussion on Russia and the West and differences perhaps it should be on those in power who control the narrative to the Russian public in what they base their beliefs on
Russia has reasserted state control over the country's major media companies : NPR
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I believe I don't missed that, but I put it more 'diplomatically' when I wrote 'fail to reach common ground'.
In a way it is like Turkiye, no matter they behave, Erdogan or No Erdogan, Europe will not going to accept Turkiye in EU. Even Turkiye in NATO more on US making rather then Western Euro making.
So what happen now should not be a surprise.
Come on at least in paper West and Russia try to find Compromise on Euro Security arrangement. It's failings also should also not be a surprise, considering even with demise of USSR, Russian and West interest still too big to bridge.
No, where in my post I put that ? Again I put West and Russia fail to reach common ground in the 90's, as neither side want to compromise enough. That's 'diplomatically' saying there's never be intention to build friendships.
Change to what ? Why Russia that the one need only to change ? Why not both try to find common ground ? This never happen, because neither side want to compromise enough in beginning to bridge the gap.
Again I'm not saying whose sides on the blame on this. Because not wanting to compromise each ideas and interest is not a blame. However what I'm disputes from beginning is the idea that Russia has 'ever' any chances to be part of NATO. Something that not happening as neither sides want to comprised their fundamental interest.
My main point from my posts on this Russia and West, what happen now should not be a surprise. Confrontation is always one of natural results, if either sides path already taking divergence toward of rivalry. Rivalry is always the results when neither sides not able to reach compromise and common ground.
"Russian interest" or the interest of Putin and his oligarch friends?
I disagree -- Europe wanted to compromise and "find common ground". However Russian leaders did not accept compromises, they did not want to "find common ground". They wanted appeasement, and they wanted their empire back. That's not a compromise.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
You serious or what?
They Lost the cold war. They collapsed.
And we should change to accomodate their demands?
What?
They didnt accept our demands, now we are in this situation because of the incapability of Russia to admit they lost the cold war.
We have different views, I accept that.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well the Russian will find the other way around. You say Russian want appeasement. Officialy they want West to disband NATO as Warsaw Pact disbanding. In their sense (at least those articles that asses Russian view as I put before), they want no more Defense pact on new Europe. From non Western and Russian view like me, It is reasonable. However something that West will not going to accept.
Russian even in Yeltsin era, run by elites that change from Communist toward Psudo Capitalist Oligarchs. West hope for more in line legal and political playing field in Russia toward Western standard, something that Russian will not done.
So both sides not going to compromise.
USSR collapse, Russian not. However I'm serious on that if you want to make compromise. That's 101 in any good faith negotiations. They are lossing cold war and not hot war. Western view like yours that make Russian fell all West want is Russian to bend the knees. Again I'm not put that as blame, but perplexed that some in West still think that kind of view will be acceptable by Russian.
Meanwhile we have others in here also saying Russian that demand much, Russian that want West to appease them and bend the kness. You see it is never going to reach common ground as both sides interest were too big devide.
So again what happen now is not and should not be come as suprise or unexpected or unreasonable path. This is all part of path of rivalry and failing to ever reach common agreeable security ground in first place.
Last edited:
Russia wanted NATO dissolved so that they could invade and annex Eastern European countries. Do you think that is reasonable? I don't. Dissolving NATO would have been a disaster for those countries that Russia would have invaded and annexed. Having an aggressive and growing empire at the "doorstep" of Western Europe would not have been good for the W. Europe either. Simply not acceptable.
In hindsight, what Europe should have done differently: Much more firm in dealing with Russia, with clear red lines, and much stronger reactions when those red lines were broken, like Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
How do you know that ? How do you certain that in the 90's when West (I mean in here US and Western Euro) and Russia try to find common Euro security arrangement, Russia will definitely going to annex Eastern Euro back (as USSR done) ?
This is just like back to old arguments whether it is reasonable or not for NATO to expand east. It is non ending arguments, because neither West or Russia have enough trust and confidence to each other.
It is arguable that if NATO not disband, but also not expand to East, Russia has no incentive to move across it's border, as East Euro become buffer zone between them and West NATO.
Off course you can come out with reasons to argue otherwise, as a Westerners you have deep untrusted feelings against Russian. Judging by Russian online forums and telegrams, the feeling is mutual.
That's why I say, present situation should not be a surprise, as this is already consequences of the path being chooses by both sides.
Is West ready for that ? US clearly not, as US still deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is West (I mean West Euro in here), really have abilities to confort Russia without US ?
Present situation developed also because the timing factor. Timing from Russian side and timing from US side. Sorry I put US in here, cause realistically West can not move without US back.
This article goes into much of the recent history of the end of the "cold war" President Putin's rise and his considerations on Russia joining N.A.T.O Twenty twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing certainly the views back then were more optimistic than today
Russia could have joined NATO. But why didn't they do it? (trtworld.com)
Russia could have joined NATO. But why didn't they do it? (trtworld.com)
Russia would of course not have annexed Eastern Europe in the 90s, they did not have the capabilities at the time.
However after rebuilding capabilities (at least to some extent), it's extremely clear that reclaiming the Russian empire is exactly what Putin and his cronies have in mind. Some of Putin's writings and speeches about this have been linked to here numerous times, so I don't quite understand why you even question that, in particular after 24 February 2022.
The reason why Russia waited until 2008 before making their first major move was because they were too weak. And without NATO, they would have probably taken the Baltics first -- much simpler task. Putin has always been looking for the low hanging fruit.
Anyway, the onus is on you to provide convincing arguments that a lack of NATO would have stopped Russian expansion. I find it completely illogical. The only thing that could have stopped Russia's expansion (apart from NATO -- which did not stop them from trying but at least reduced their options) would have been a change in the Russian society, that alas we did not see.
You did not comment on my previous statements about Africa and Russia -- perhaps because that does not fit into your narrative? Africa has no NATO. They don't even pose an imaginary threat to Russia. Still Russia is happy to plunder and massacre their way through the continent. Europe stopped doing that a long time ago. Because Europe has changed. Russia has not.
Russia is what it is: An aggressive, expansionist, malignant country. Of course it will try to come up with all kinds of excuses and try to blame somebody else, they are experts in that field. However their latest invasion in Ukraine was an eye opener to most people in Europe and Russia's lies are no longer believed, at least not in Europe.
Consider that Putin even killed Russians in Moscow to get an excuse to launch a war in Chechenia and increase his popularity. Consider all the written agreements Russia has broken. Consider all the crimes they commit in Ukraine, Africa, Syria and elsewhere. One should not make compromises with such people. The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia's Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin - Foreign Policy Research Institute (fpri.org)
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Important day for EU
The FSR Is a fundamental tool to ensure and expand EU central control on Its market.
The FSR Is a fundamental tool to ensure and expand EU central control on Its market.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
It can be argue this happen because they already in conflict path with West. With Nato expanding East.
However your arguments that Russia will not annex East Euro in 90's, because their weak, clearly shown you simply not trust Russia, but can not substantially provide any evidence that Russia in the 90's is already untrustworthy.
Ohh Come on and the West already change and not doing that with Africa anymore ?? What you call plunder is mostly done by Russian Defense Contractor, some work under Russian regime, but also with local regine. I don't answer it because it is not related to the topic. Sorry to say it is bit ridiculous comparison. While West done it much more than Russia or even China on that continent history. West already change in Africa? Is this your narrative??
The ONUS is in you to shown Russia in 90's also has construct toward East Euro annexation. You don't understand me, but I do really understand your western bias.
Why does Russia don't want Ukraine to join NATO?
The war between Ukraine and Russia has been ongoing now for eleven days. Vladimir Putin has ordered the launch of attacks on strategic places in Russia's neighboring country, in or
Something to give for you that seems not going to find others perspective and only Western base thinking. Even some in West also understood everything is action to counter action. Not anything outside West is wrong as you seems think.
Last edited:
The reason why NATO expanded was because Eastern European countries (who know Russia better than anybody) did not trust Russia to change and pushed extremely hard to get into NATO. At that time many in Western Europe (including myself) were still hopeful that Russia would change. However looking at the evidence we have now it is very clear that the Eastern European countries were right all along, and those who were hoping for Russian change at the time, were naïve optimists (myself included).
It was not a comparison, but an example of Russian "foreign policy". It is relevant because it clearly demonstrates how Russia operates abroad. And Wagner is definitely part of Russia's force structure, you can see that in the war in Ukraine.
You clearly do not understand the Russian way of thinking. "Western bias" -- those that most clearly saw the Russian regime for what it is, are in Eastern Europe, not "the West". Alas, "the West" remained blind to Russia's plans and machinations for too long.
Anyway it is useless to continue this discussion. You clearly have your anti-western bias, and refuse to see the realities of Russian imperial ambitions. Perhaps somebody who can write and explain better than me (@swerve do you volunteer
) can make this more clear to you, but I give up.SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
We do not think everyone except us is wrong.
Russia's demands are perfectly legit from their point of view.
But thats the difference between western civilization ( Europe, North America and Australia) and for example the asiatic way of thinking.
We are an historically violent civilization.
European countries used to rule most of the known world thru force and violence.
And our past Is part of us.
Unlike the Chinese, for example, we sometimes prefer clash to an agreement.
We dont think on the ultra-long term.
We defend our interests, whatever It takes.
We are, by culture, not open to bad agreements.
Russian demands would mean a change in our view of the world, a step back from us.
That would mean a sign of weakness, and thats not possible.
Do you have an idea about how much our media talked about the long-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan as an " unacceptable sign of weakness ".
We are open to agreements, we can make deals, we can speak to the enemies.
But western countries dont like to be fooled and Putin made fun of us for months.
We cant accept that.
Hes got to pay.
Russia's demands are perfectly legit from their point of view.
But thats the difference between western civilization ( Europe, North America and Australia) and for example the asiatic way of thinking.
We are an historically violent civilization.
European countries used to rule most of the known world thru force and violence.
And our past Is part of us.
Unlike the Chinese, for example, we sometimes prefer clash to an agreement.
We dont think on the ultra-long term.
We defend our interests, whatever It takes.
We are, by culture, not open to bad agreements.
Russian demands would mean a change in our view of the world, a step back from us.
That would mean a sign of weakness, and thats not possible.
Do you have an idea about how much our media talked about the long-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan as an " unacceptable sign of weakness ".
We are open to agreements, we can make deals, we can speak to the enemies.
But western countries dont like to be fooled and Putin made fun of us for months.
We cant accept that.
Hes got to pay.