Russia's Military Expansion

[gazzzwp]

I propose a new thread to look at the details and wider implications of Russia's new military resurgence. Here is a new item I read today:

Russia gets permanent Syrian air base, ponders reopening Cuban and Vietnamese bases

Confirmed in Reuters:

Russia considers military bases in Vietnam and Cuba: agencies | Reuters

The permanent Syrian base is now old news but the proposal to re-open bases in Cuba and Vietnam I confess startled me somewhat. Could this be actually possible or is it just talk? Putin did mention some time ago (during the Ukrainian conflict) that he desired a presence in the America's. Even though the US has re-established trade with Cuba and is on good terms with both nations, how would the US react to Russia expanding in those regions?

Could the desire to open a base in Vietnam be linked to the ongoing SCS conflict and a desire to support China?

Why does Russia at the moment seem to be actively preparing for a major war? Is it that they are trying to force the US and NATO to retreat from it's borders by starting up a modern version of the Cuban missile crisis? Was the political re-alignment of the Ukraine the last straw for Putin?

Will Russia be able to financially maintain such bases (if established) or are we to see Russia overstretch itself and go into meltdown as the USSR did in the late 80's?

Is it all a reaction to ongoing sanctions and a direct attempt to fight back at the west? Russia's expansion into the Arctic is covered in another thread, as is Russia's reaction to the European missile shield installation. Could this be the catalyst to the alarming expansionist plans?

What does the now extensive Russian influence in the middle east mean for the balance of power in that region? How should the US respond if at all?

Is it all just a result of Putin's ego and a desire to see Russia as a major agitator and competitor to the US?

I hope the thread meets with approval, because this is indeed a major issue with the potential to affect the whole world.

 

[STURM]

The permanent Syrian base is now old news but the proposal to re-open bases in Cuba and Vietnam I confess startled me somewhat. Could this be actually possible or is it just talk?

I really doubt if China is looking at a permanent base in Vietnam and I doubt if Vietnam was willing to host a Russian military presence there [like it did in the 1980's]. What we might see are visits by Russian naval ships for ''showing the flag'' or for rest and refueling. Another possibility is that Russia wants again have a SIGINT/ELINT facility in Vietnam as it once did. Also, how would the Chinese react? As for Cuba, what would it have to gain from allowing a Russian military presence there; especially given that Cuban/U.S. ties are on the mend?

Could the desire to open a base in Vietnam be linked to the ongoing SCS conflict and a desire to support China?

By and large, Russia hasn't been focusing much on the South China Sea and I doubt f this will change anytime soon. As for Russian support for China, who knows? What we do know is that Russia is also wary of China; both may share common interests and it may be a marriage of convenience but both also have some level f concerns and distrust.

What does the now extensive Russian influence in the middle east mean for the balance of power in that region? How should the US respond if at all?

I wouldn't describe Russian influence in the region as ''extensive''. Sure Russia's now a major player in Syria and the West - unlike in the past - has to factor in Russia when conducting its affairs in Syria but by and large most countries - despite some strains in the relationship - have a deeper relationship with the West.

Is it all just a result of Putin's ego and a desire to see Russia as a major agitator and competitor to the US?

I suspect it's a combination of several factors; namely to make Russia great again and not a 2nd rate power with less global influence when measured against the U.S. I highly doubt that Russia is seeking to establish a permanent military presence in Vietnam or Cuba but if did; any complains by the West would be a case of the Western pot calling the Russian cattle black; given that the West has numerous military bases worldwide.

 

[gazzzwp]

I really doubt if China is looking at a permanent base in Vietnam and I doubt if Vietnam was willing to host a Russian military presence there [like it did in the 1980's]. What we might see are visits by Russian naval ships to Vietnam for ''showing the flag'' visits or for rest and refueling. Another possibility is that Russia wants again have a SIGINT facility in Vietnam as it once did.

As for Cuba, what would have to gain from allowing a Russian military presence there; especially given that Cuban/U.S. ties are on the mend.



I wouldn't describe Russian influence in the region as ''extensive''. Sure Russia's a major player in Syria and the West - unlike in the past - has to factor in Russia when conducting its affairs in Syria but by and large most countries - despite some strains in the relationship - have a deeper relationship with the West.



I suspect it's a combination of several factors; namely to make Russia great again and not a 2nd rate power with less global influence when measured against the U.S. I highly doubt that Russia is seeking to establish a permanent military presence in Vietnam or Cuba but if did; any complains by the West would be a case of the Western pot calling the Russian cattle black; given that the West [or more accurately the U.S.] has numerous military bases worldwide.

Do you think this is something that modern day Russia can realistically afford in financial terms? Is the pay back likely to be worth it?

I just wanted to add that Russia's military expansionism is also causing the US real concern in the virtual environment. Russia's ability to take down major US infrastructure is well known and the US admits that it is playing catch up.

 

[gazzzwp]

A short clip worth watching. It mentions how Russia is moving nuclear capable missiles into the enclave of Kaliningrad. The clip then goes on to discuss Kerry's plea for investigations into war crimes over Aleppo. Then it speculates that a 'shooting match' between the US and Russia may not be far away and it finishes by mentioning Russia's latest bomber incursions into Norwegian airspace.

Kerry calls for war crimes probe into Russia and Syria | On Air Videos | Fox News

More on the missiles:

Russia moves nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad | Reuters

 

[Feanor]

A short clip worth watching. It mentions how Russia is moving nuclear capable missiles into the enclave of Kaliningrad. The clip then goes on to discuss Kerry's plea for investigations into war crimes over Aleppo. Then it speculates that a 'shooting match' between the US and Russia may not be far away and it finishes by mentioning Russia's latest bomber incursions into Norwegian airspace.

Kerry calls for war crimes probe into Russia and Syria | On Air Videos | Fox News

More on the missiles:

Russia moves nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad | Reuters

This is just silly. Nuclear capable Tochka TELs have been in Kaliningrad this whole time. It's one of the last Missile Bdes that's getting re-armed with Iskander missiles. If it was intended to send a message, it would have been done loudly. Instead it's a quiet continuation of the phasing out of the Tochkas for the Iskander. This isn't some significant expansion. This is the conclusion of a lengthy process.

 

[gazzzwp]

This is just silly. Nuclear capable Tochka TELs have been in Kaliningrad this whole time. It's one of the last Missile Bdes that's getting re-armed with Iskander missiles. If it was intended to send a message, it would have been done loudly. Instead it's a quiet continuation of the phasing out of the Tochkas for the Iskander. This isn't some significant expansion. This is the conclusion of a lengthy process.

That raises a good question and that is to what degree is the media over-hyping this issue?

I still am faced with the important question which is why would Russia want to be a major world military power and devote so much resource to it, and in doing so taking huge risks when they have much more pressing matters with their economy? China and the US are much stronger economically.

NATO has repeatedly stated that it is not an offensive but a defensive organisation.

Could it all be a last desperate roll of the dice as they perceive their economy to be unrecoverable?

 

[Toblerone]

Russia needs to invest in its military because unlike the USA, it actually has territorial disputes with its neighbours, russian minorities in other countries etc. Also, it has a problem with ethnic islamic minorities. These are actual dangers. Contrast that with USA that has to manufacture enemies by lying about weapons of mass destruction to feed its scandalous military machine and topple unfriendly regimes on the other side of the planet destabilising whole continents and causing unprecedented waves of refugees.

So cut the russians some slack, they need the military for survival, it isn't just to boost Putin's ego :el

 

[Boatteacher]

Russia needs to invest in its military because unlike the USA, it actually has territorial disputes with its neighbours, russian minorities in other countries etc. Also, it has a problem with ethnic islamic minorities. These are actual dangers.

As far as I know their borders are well defined (or at least everyone else would think so; former Japanese Islands excepted, although there's no aggression from Japan evident on that issue).
And I find it a bit alarming that "Russian minorites" in other countries might be considered a reason to upgrade military equipment. The inferences that arise with that statement went out in WW2.
And unless you're considering a genocidal level of engagement, you don't need high end war fighting equipment to deal with an insurgency (although at the moment it might be argued that France has more of a problem then they do).

In actual fact their real danger from foreign incursion is almost non-existent.

Whether they wish to expend their limited treasure on military equipment is up to them, but the reasons you offer are outright dangerous. If it was merely to restore a sense of pride, that might be OK. But when it's accompanied by a desire to restore lost empire and stand over the foreign policies of other countries, it's not; especially when there might be a reasonable concern that foreign adventures will be used to distract from domestic problems.

 

[Feanor]

As far as I know their borders are well defined (or at least everyone else would think so; former Japanese Islands excepted, although there's no aggression from Japan evident on that issue).
And I find it a bit alarming that "Russian minorites" in other countries might be considered a reason to upgrade military equipment. The inferences that arise with that statement went out in WW2.
And unless you're considering a genocidal level of engagement, you don't need high end war fighting equipment to deal with an insurgency (although at the moment it might be argued that France has more of a problem then they do).

In actual fact their real danger from foreign incursion is almost non-existent.

Whether they wish to expend their limited treasure on military equipment is up to them, but the reasons you offer are outright dangerous. If it was merely to restore a sense of pride, that might be OK. But when it's accompanied by a desire to restore lost empire and stand over the foreign policies of other countries, it's not; especially when there might be a reasonable concern that foreign adventures will be used to distract from domestic problems.

Russia intends to be a first tier world power, and recent history shows that a powerful military with considerable force projection capabilities is essential to this. This is reality. Pretending that international affairs are handled without implicit and explicit threat of military force is downright delusional.

 

[Feanor]

That raises a good question and that is to what degree is the media over-hyping this issue?

I still am faced with the important question which is why would Russia want to be a major world military power and devote so much resource to it, and in doing so taking huge risks when they have much more pressing matters with their economy? China and the US are much stronger economically.

NATO has repeatedly stated that it is not an offensive but a defensive organisation.

Nobody in Russian government believes those claims since Yugoslavia. NATO can make those statements as many times as they please. Also, forget NATO, the US alone is a serious enough military threat under present conditions. And then there's the "friendly" China, the rising tide of radical Islam that threatens Central Asia and the Caucuses, and of course looming ahead is the next big war.

Could it all be a last desperate roll of the dice as they perceive their economy to be unrecoverable?

What? Russia has been trying to build up their military for over a decade. When they began they sat on a rapidly growing economy with a relatively mild case of dutch disease. What exactly does "unrecoverable" even mean? Are you under the impression that all economic activity in Russia will grind to a halt?

EDIT: On the subject of Cuba and Vietnam, Russian (not Soviet) presence there in the past was relatively small. Resuming activity on that level wouldn't even be all that expensive. But so far it's all talk. We'll see if anything actually materializes.

 

[ngatimozart]

Russia needs to invest in its military because unlike the USA, it actually has territorial disputes with its neighbours, russian minorities in other countries etc. Also, it has a problem with ethnic islamic minorities. These are actual dangers. Contrast that with USA that has to manufacture enemies by lying about weapons of mass destruction to feed its scandalous military machine and topple unfriendly regimes on the other side of the planet destabilising whole continents and causing unprecedented waves of refugees.

So cut the russians some slack, they need the military for survival, it isn't just to boost Putin's ego :el

What territorial disputes would these be? The ones that they have caused themselves? Like the Nazis in the 1930's did with the German minorities in the Sudetenland etc., they are using the Russian minorities to create crises in order to advance their aims and goals at the expense of their neighbours freedom and independence. Your blatant anti-Americanism shows through and whilst I do not agree with everything that the US does, I do know who I prefer to work and deal with because they generally have the same values as I do and we have a common history.

 

[Toblerone]

I am very disappointed with the way things have gone in the Middle East and the spillover into Europe. And my country specifically. I blame US policies for that. And their alliance with the saudis/qatar, their relationship with Israel, too.

Sorry for being so blatant with my "anti-Americanism". This would only be an insult if I was an american, though, not a european with independent thinking. After the iraqi invasion was proven to be a war crime, this stance is the most principled one.

 

[Boatteacher]

Russia intends to be a first tier world power, and recent history shows that a powerful military with considerable force projection capabilities is essential to this. This is reality. Pretending that international affairs are handled without implicit and explicit threat of military force is downright delusional.

No delusions. I agree with you. In a way that is what my last paragraph was trying to say (disapprovingly to the extent it involves actual military incursions into neighbours to create that empire).

But my answer was phrased to point out the difficulties with the post I was responding to.

 

[Boatteacher]

I am very disappointed with the way things have gone in the Middle East and the spillover into Europe. And my country specifically. I blame US policies for that. And their alliance with the saudis/qatar, their relationship with Israel, too.

Sorry for being so blatant with my "anti-Americanism". This would only be an insult if I was an american, though, not a european with independent thinking. After the iraqi invasion was proven to be a war crime, this stance is the most principled one.

The Middle East is a mess.

With its long standing (thousands of years old) sectarian, racial, tribal and extended family divisions, it was a mess always waiting to happen. It should be taken as warning which should be heeded by those in the West who fail to recognize the distinction between a tolerant multiracial admissions (or immigration) policy and one that is multicultural in an ill defined, no obligations sort of way. Where multicultural policies lead to societies with sub-stratum living in silos which do not integrate (and intermarry) with each other you eventually create another Middle East.

I have trouble thinking of a long term siloed multicultural country which has not suffered civil war or a succession movement (and if it's not siloed, then it won't stay multicultural absent new admissions).

BUT one way or another the modern world was going to trigger that mess; modern communications if nothing more.

I accept the Iraq invasion can be seen as having lit the fuse. I disagreed with it (for what little my opinion matters) at the time and no less with some of the policies adopted in its implimentation.

BUT you could just as easily say that the fuse was lit by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. After all, until then even that country had a workable government and some prospect of advancement.

No Russian invasion, no Taliban, no 9/11, no Al Qaeda, no American response to 9/11 in the form of the military presence in that country and Iraq, no ISIS.

There are many sets of dirty hands here.

 

[Toblerone]

The Soviet Union was a vile regime, no doubt about that. Good riddings.

But was 9/11 a result of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the USA arming the Taliban? This is a genuine, non-rhetorical question

I don't want to post the "anti-soviet warrior putting his country on the road to piece" article again, heh.

 

[Boatteacher]

The Soviet Union was a vile regime, no doubt about that. Good riddings.

But was 9/11 a result of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the USA arming the Taliban? This is a genuine, non-rhetorical question

When you look at the history of the country (and some of the analysis of why it is like it is derived from the US involvement there) the invasion was always going to be resisted. In the context of the cold war games of the times, a US encouragement and arming of that resistance was inevitable (as the Russians and Chinese did with Vietnam). But the first move was with Russia.

But really, is it as easy as saying the old Soviet Union was a vile regime? Aren't some current Russian actions in support of their first tier status somewhat similar?

The difficultly the US eventually found itself in is that there is no solution to the problems in the ME that can be implemented in accordance with anything like what might be called Western values.

By brutally indiscriminately killing enough people, one party - usually a minority - can eventually dominate the others; a dominance that can only be maintained with more killing.

Democracy looks to have no future there that I can see. There is too much of a winner takes all mindset. Mind you, the US was told that before Iraq ("You break it, you own it").

I was sympathetic to the US's slowness to act in Syria. It was difficult to see a winning approach (and winning was nothing more than stopping the fighting and killing and settling the country back down preferably without leaving in power the dictator who'd started the killing in the first place). Applying their ROE of engagement was only going to get them into another quagmire.

Russia has no such scruples. Kill lots of people - civilians or rebels, doesn't matter - demolish whole towns with indiscriminate bombing, reinstall and prop up a murderous dictator. Declare victory and reap the geo-political rewards.

 

[swerve]

The Soviet Union was a vile regime, no doubt about that. Good riddings.

But was 9/11 a result of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the USA arming the Taliban? This is a genuine, non-rhetorical question

The ISI (Pakistan) armed the Taliban, not the USA. They appeared pretty much from nowhere a few years after the USSR had ceased to exist, five years after the Red Army left Afghanistan & the USA stopped arming the rebels.

During the Soviet war in Afghanistan the ISI played the USA all the way, directing US weapons to ISI clients & away from Afghans it disliked (whether for political, religious or ethnic reasons - Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras & Shias were out, Sunni Pashtuns were in), regardless of military effectiveness or potential for establishing a stable government. Other countries who had people involved were getting alarm calls from their people in Pakistan about it, but if they raised concerns with the Americans they were brushed off. The CIA backed the ISI, & seemed blind to how it had its own agenda, very different from that of the USA.

And the ISI carried on like that after the Soviets left.

 

[gazzzwp]

The ISI (Pakistan) armed the Taliban, not the USA. They appeared pretty much from nowhere a few years after the USSR had ceased to exist, five years after the Red Army left Afghanistan & the USA stopped arming the rebels.

During the Soviet war in Afghanistan the ISI played the USA all the way, directing US weapons to ISI clients & away from Afghans it disliked (whether for political, religious or ethnic reasons - Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras & Shias were out, Sunni Pashtuns were in), regardless of military effectiveness or potential for establishing a stable government. Other countries who had people involved were getting alarm calls from their people in Pakistan about it, but if they raised concerns with the Americans they were brushed off. The CIA backed the ISI, & seemed blind to how it had its own agenda, very different from that of the USA.

And the ISI carried on like that after the Soviets left.

It's interesting how we appear to be seeing history playing itself out all over again. The enmity between the USSR and the US was extreme and nearly cost just about every human life on the planet. Proxy wars were fought in every corner of the globe in the name of one ideology versus another.

Arguably the US came out better because of better economic and management practices. That in turn gave rise to an edge in technology when the cold war ended.

It would appear that unfortunately for the US, a leader took control of Russia who laments the fall of the USSR and now wants to re-instate it's former military and political influence even if it costs the nation economically and other nations bordering Russia.

So here we go again with a new cold war. It is here and it has begun. Everyone on the planet should be aware that is has begun and not pretend otherwise, with all of the dangers and instability that this entails.

Round 1 goes to Russia because of how they managed the Syrian conflict with a clear strategy backed by upgraded military hardware and clear co-ordination with regional allies.

Make no mistake though the exercise was not about saving Assad but scoring a decisive moral victory over the US and this has been done at least temporarily.

Please feel free to agree or disagree.

 

[gazzzwp]

Here we go again:

Gorbachev warns about nuclear war.

https://www.rt.com/politics/362253-world-is-on-verge-gorbachev/

Intriguingly the US does not regularly make these kind of warnings. Russia however does.

 

[STURM]

But was 9/11 a result of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the USA arming the Taliban?

The U.S. didn't arm the Taliban. what it did was to give the ISI carte blanche in deciding which rebel groups would get supplied, including Pashtun groups in the Kandahar area that would years later become the Taliban. The IS naturally provided arms and supplies to groups that were friendly to Pakistan [like Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami]; not groups that were effective on the battlefield. In fact when the Talibs entered the picture, many countries, including the U.S. initially saw them as a potential stabilising force against the various warlords that were wrecking the country. A Taliban delegation even visited the U.S. as part of a U.S. company's efforts to build a oil pipeline across Taliban controlled territory. Pakistan made the Taliban it's main proxy after their man, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, lost all the territory he controlled to the Taliban.

BUT you could just as easily say that the fuse was lit by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. After all, until then even that country had a workable government and some prospect of advancement.

No. The fuse was lit after the U.S. decided that Afghanistan was no longer of importance because the Soviets had withdrawn. The result is that the country went into a civil war and the ideal conditions were created for the emergence of the Taliban. Even after the Talibs had taken over most of the country and were playing host to Osama and his organisation; the CIA was prohibited by law to supply the Northern Alliance with lethal aid. The only reason the Northern Alliance was able to survive was due to gem sales and aid provided by India and Russia, via Tajikistan. One reason the Pakistanis adopted their own Afghan policy whilst also giving the impression that they were fully cooperating with the U.S. is because they feared the U.S. would leave then in the lurch again; like it did after the Soviets left Afghanistan.