Russia - General Discussion.

[Feanor]

Yes but I don't believe "might makes right" is dominant in the west. International treaties are typically western initiatives. And every western armed force essentially invests enormous resources into fighting in a way that isn't ultra genocidal. But these treaties are usually created under the framework of the UN, and that's where the issue of political activism comes in, to the point where it seriously undermines these treaties.

Let's say that entirely hypothetically the west initiates an anti-cluster munitions treaty. The idea is they decide to limit themselves, and don't delude themselves thinking authoritarian regimes would comply. A group of experts sets the dud rate at 5% and establishes that anything below that is safe to use and UXO can be easily removed.
Then in a vote by a general council including all nations, the authoritarian regimes band together to change that to 0.5%. Now it no longer follows the scientific method, and western nations are crippled in some forms of combat capabilities.

This is a very misleading hypothetical. First off the "scientific method" can't be used to set a dud rate. Because the decision of acceptable casualties caused by duds is not a question of science to begin with. Science deals with questions of fact, and testable ones at that. If in the general council they find the casualties caused by a dud rate of 5% unacceptable and set it at 0.5% then that isn't a violation of the scientific method. And just because a group of experts say 5% is good enough certainly doesn't make the 5% number inherently "scientific". And by the way who are these experts? Would they happen to be a number of ranking ex-military personnel connected primarily to first world countries? Which side has unofficial ties and connections to this body of theoretically independent experts? Who even decided that this group of experts gets to set the dud rate?

Scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application | Britannica

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The scientific method is applied broadly across the sciences.

www.britannica.com

In the real example of the cluster munitions ban treaty the western countries for the most part don't want a 5% dud rate or any dud rate. They want the munitions banned. It's the authoritarians like Russia and China (plus of course America who's in distinguished company here) that don't want any restrictions on their use of cluster munitions. I understand that Israel may want to use cluster munitions with a dud rate they consider reasonable, but forgive me, who cares what Israel considers reasonable? If we're talking about a standard for everyone to follow, it's a standard that's first off going to be inherently political in nature. No cluster munition will ever have 0 collateral damage. So the question becomes, what level of collateral damage is acceptable? Many developed countries have decided that the very nature of cluster munitions means they are not acceptable regardless of dud rate. A number of authoritarian nations and a few presumptively non-authoritarian ones have disagreed. None of this has anything to do with the question of the ICC. Again this is a voluntary treaty where some countries have voluntarily sacrificed their sovereign authority to use cluster munitions, and others have not. The question of submitting to ICC authority goes to the heart of consistent application and willingness to sacrifice some state sovereignty in exchange for the adoption of standards on an international level.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

This is a very misleading hypothetical. First off the "scientific method" can't be used to set a dud rate. Because the decision of acceptable casualties caused by duds is not a question of science to begin with. Science deals with questions of fact, and testable ones at that. If in the general council they find the casualties caused by a dud rate of 5% unacceptable and set it at 0.5% then that isn't a violation of the scientific method. And just because a group of experts say 5% is good enough certainly doesn't make the 5% number inherently "scientific". And by the way who are these experts? Would they happen to be a number of ranking ex-military personnel connected primarily to first world countries? Which side has unofficial ties and connections to this body of theoretically independent experts? Who even decided that this group of experts gets to set the dud rate?

Scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application | Britannica

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The scientific method is applied broadly across the sciences.

www.britannica.com

In the real example of the cluster munitions ban treaty the western countries for the most part don't want a 5% dud rate or any dud rate. They want the munitions banned. It's the authoritarians like Russia and China (plus of course America who's in distinguished company here) that don't want any restrictions on their use of cluster munitions. I understand that Israel may want to use cluster munitions with a dud rate they consider reasonable, but forgive me, who cares what Israel considers reasonable? If we're talking about a standard for everyone to follow, it's a standard that's first off going to be inherently political in nature. No cluster munition will ever have 0 collateral damage. So the question becomes, what level of collateral damage is acceptable? Many developed countries have decided that the very nature of cluster munitions means they are not acceptable regardless of dud rate. A number of authoritarian nations and a few presumptively non-authoritarian ones have disagreed. None of this has anything to do with the question of the ICC. Again this is a voluntary treaty where some countries have voluntarily sacrificed their sovereign authority to use cluster munitions, and others have not. The question of submitting to ICC authority goes to the heart of consistent application and willingness to sacrifice some state sovereignty in exchange for the adoption of standards on an international level.

You took it too literally. It was a hypothetical scenario. If I wanted it to be true-to-life I'd use the actual real life scenario, but then it wouldn't be relevant to my point.
The important bit is the ability of nations to abuse international treaties and bodies for political gain.

 

[Feanor]

You took it too literally. It was a hypothetical scenario. If I wanted it to be true-to-life I'd use the actual real life scenario, but then it wouldn't be relevant to my point.
The important bit is the ability of nations to abuse international treaties and bodies for political gain.

Your example reveals more then you intended. The fundamental problem is that a lot of the decisions these organizations make are fundamentally political. And you (and many of the first world countries too) don't trust the rest of the world to make those decision. I understand this mistrust, but does it stem from the fact that the first world is more pluralistic and democratic? Or does it stem from the fact that the first world is unwilling to give up its power? I think this question takes us as far as is meaningful down this discussion for the purposes of this thread, though feel free to reply if you have a point of view. I think this illuminates the Russia-West dilemma.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

|"Rishi Sunak was given a 'secret briefing' after a Russian nuclear submarine was spotted off the coast of Scotland earlier this month, it has been revealed."|

It is obvious that so called 'leakages of secret briefings' are intentionally shared with the press, in this case to let Russia know that NATO keeps an eye on movements of Russia's naval assets.

But once again it shows that every country with territorial waters/EEZ at sea needs decent MPA/ASW aircrafts.

MSN

www.msn.com

I was just too lazy to put this separately in the Russian Air Force thread, but the Russian Federation - Aerospace Forces (RF VKS) will cease operations of the world's largest turboprop aircraft, the Antonov An-22 this year. At this moment there are still 5 An-22 active.

An-22 to be retired

An-22 to be retired In 2024, the Russian Federation - Aerospace Forces (RF VKS) will cease operations of the world's largest turboprop aircraft, the Antonov An-22 'Antei' (NATO rep...

www.scramble.nl

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed at least a dozen deals with his Vietnamese counterpart on Thursday and offered to supply fossil fuels, including natural gas, to Vietnam during the state visit. Putin and President To Lam agreed to further cooperate in education, science and technology, oil and gas exploration and clean energy. The two countries also agreed to work on a roadmap for a nuclear science and technology center in Vietnam.

Of the 12 publicly announced agreements, none overtly pertained to defense but Lam said there were other deals that were not made public.

Russia has historically been Vietnam's major military supplier, and the majority of Vietnamese defence equipment is Soviet/Russian made, so we will see if Vietnam made some deals for new equipment or maintenance/modernization packages for existing material.

MSN

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-5013432/putin-russia-vietnam-deals

 

[Feanor]

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed at least a dozen deals with his Vietnamese counterpart on Thursday and offered to supply fossil fuels, including natural gas, to Vietnam during the state visit. Putin and President To Lam agreed to further cooperate in education, science and technology, oil and gas exploration and clean energy. The two countries also agreed to work on a roadmap for a nuclear science and technology center in Vietnam.

Of the 12 publicly announced agreements, none overtly pertained to defense but Lam said there were other deals that were not made public.

Russia has historically been Vietnam's major military supplier, and the majority of Vietnamese defence equipment is Soviet/Russian made, so we will see if Vietnam made some deals for new equipment or maintenance/modernization packages for existing material.

MSN

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-5013432/putin-russia-vietnam-deals

Putin also visited the DPRK for the first time in a while, and signed some sort of mutual military agreement. In and of itself this is quite vague, but it can probably be considered in light of the recent statements about providing weapons to the enemies of countries that are supplying Ukraine. On a more practical note, the DPRK has been a major arms supplier to Russia. For the DPRK this is probably their golden hour. They can produce the types of munitions Russia can use in large numbers, and get a good price for them especially in light of what's happening on the global arms market. This will likely also open the door on increased trade in other areas, including cooperation on space ventures where Russia still has something to offer, and other relatively high tech areas (nuclear?).

It will be interesting to see how the RoK reacts. In principle this should sour their relations with Russia. Russia has pursued mutually beneficial relations with South Korea for decades, including cooperation in space and defense projects. In the past the RoK has also been very hesitant to sanction Russia despite them generally being regarded as a US ally. This might push the RoK into greater support for Ukraine, and greater willingness to sanction Russia.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/putin-kim-agree-develop-strategic-fortress-relations-kcna-says-2024-06-18/

What's known, and not known, about the partnership agreement signed by Russia and North Korea

Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un say a new strategic partnership is a breakthrough, but what it means for their relationship is still uncertain.

apnews.com

 

[swerve]

So far, S. Korea hasn't been supplying weapons or ammunition to Ukraine. It's been happy to sell weapons to NATO countries, but not for them to be passed on to Ukraine.

 

[John Fedup]

So far, S. Korea hasn't been supplying weapons or ammunition to Ukraine. It's been happy to sell weapons to NATO countries, but not for them to be passed on to Ukraine.

Hopefully Putin’s visit to NK changes SK’s position on using its weapons in Ukraine. NK munitions to Russia deserves a response, SK munitions to Ukraine.

 

[KipPotapych]

So far, S. Korea hasn't been supplying weapons or ammunition to Ukraine. It's been happy to sell weapons to NATO countries, but not for them to be passed on to Ukraine.

That isn’t the case though. They provided more artillery ammunition to Ukraine in 2023 than Europe did. Without South Korea, last summer’s offensive may not have been possible. From the other thread:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/04/ukraine-counteroffensive-us-planning-russia-war/

[…]

South Korea was seen as a potential donor of the shells, being able to supply estimated 330,000, but they were reluctant to do so directly (and their laws prohibited them of such actions); eventually, at the beginning of the year, they were convinced by the US and the shells started (indirectly) leaving for Ukraine, making South Korea a larger supplier of ammo than the entire EU.

This is only what we know of with utmost certainty.

 

[swerve]

The article you linked to is behind a paywall. I don't have an account.

According to other reports, the Washington Post said that in 2023 South Korea supplied shells to the USA ('lent' them), & didn't ask what the Americans did with them, e.g. whether they kept them & shipped shells from US stocks to Ukraine, gave them to other countries which then gave Ukraine shells from their own stocks or gave them to Ukraine. But they were careful not to give anything directly.

Note that immediately after the Washington Post report, South Korea denied that South Korean lethal weapons were being supplied to Ukraine. I don't think "we know of with utmost certainty" that South Korean artillery ammunition is going to Ukraine. We do know that the USA has imported ammunition from S. Korea while giving shells to Ukraine, but we don't know that they're the same shells.

In 2022 South Korea is reported to have sold 100,000 155mm shells to the USA on condition that the USA kept them for its own use. Of course, that doesn't stop the USA sending shells from its own stocks & replacing them with Korean shells.

 

[KipPotapych]

^ From the WP article:

The Biden administration announced in early January that it would send Bradley Fighting Vehicles; Britain agreed to transfer 14 Challenger tanks. Later that month, after a grudging U.S. announcement that it would provide top-line Abrams M1 tanks by the fall, Germany and other NATO nations pledged hundreds of German-made Leopard tanks in time for the counteroffensive.

A far bigger problem was the supply of 155mm shells, which would enable Ukraine to compete with Russia’s vast artillery arsenal. The Pentagon calculated that Kyiv needed 90,000 or more a month. While U.S. production was increasing, it was barely more than a tenth of that.

“It was just math,” the former senior official said. “At a certain point, we just wouldn’t be able to provide them.”

Sullivan laid out options. South Korea had massive quantities of the U.S.-provided munitions, but its laws prohibited sending weapons to war zones. The Pentagoncalculated that about 330,000 155mm shells could be transferred by air and sea within 41 days if Seoul could be persuaded.

Senior administration officials had been speaking with counterparts in Seoul, who were receptive as long as the provision was indirect. The shells began to flow at the beginning of the year, eventually making South Korea a larger supplier of artillery ammunition for Ukraine than all European nations combined.

The more immediate alternative would entail tapping the U.S. military’s arsenal of 155mm shells that, unlike the South Korean variant, were packed with cluster munitions. The Pentagon had thousands of them, gathering dust for decades. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken balked.

Direct or indirect has little relevance (none at all, actually) when the final destination and purpose is known. in other words, South Korea had supplied artillery ammunition to Ukraine. I would also speculate that the number is probably higher than suggested.

The 100,000 you are referring to was supplied in 2022.

If Russia reached an agreement with China for ammunition supplies and China would only agree to do so indirectly (via North Korea, for example), China would be supplying Russia with ammunition. I doubt anyone here would suggest otherwise. But someone in China certainly would.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The article you linked to is behind a paywall. I don't have an account.

According to other reports, the Washington Post said that in 2023 South Korea supplied shells to the USA ('lent'them), & didn't ask what the Americans did with them, e.g. whether they kept them & shipped shells from US stocks to Ukraine, gave them to other countries which then gave Ukraine shells from their own stocks or gave them to Ukraine. But they were careful not to give anything directly.

Note that immediately after the Washington Post report, South Korea denied that South Korean lethal weapons were being supplied to Ukraine. I don't think "we know of with utmost certainty" that South Korean artillery ammunition is going to Ukraine. We do know that the USA has imported ammunition from S. Korea while giving shells to Ukraine, but we don't know that they're the same shells.

In 2022 South Korea is reported to have sold 100,000 155mm shells to the USA on condition that the USA kept them for its own use. Of course, that doesn't stop the USA sending shells from its own stocks & replacing them with Korean shells.

Passing directly or indirectly is subtleties that should be left to bureaucrats, and are not essential. The west has a pool of immediately available weaponry, and industrial capacity to increase it. The micro-management matters little. If South Korea provides 100 tanks to Poland, then Poland can send 100 tanks to Ukraine. Without South Korean exports, 100 tanks would not reach Ukraine.
Same goes for Israel. It is careful not to overtly send anything directly to Ukraine, and even banned the export of advanced Spike missiles. But its recent withdrawal of up to 8 batteries of Patriot, nod to the US to get 300k shells out of WRSA-I and to Ukraine, and its expedited sale of artillery, air defenses, munitions, and other items to Europe, also greatly helped Ukraine by allowing to backfill for donations.

Russia's potential move to repay North Korea, presumably with weapons tech (for local NK production) is particularly harmful to 2 nations:
1. South Korea, obviously.
2. Israel, as NK exports to Iran.

South Korea may be more inclined toward a more overt response to Russia.
Israel, however, is not. It is naturally more covert, and its preoccupation with a multi-front war at the moment really limits its response capabilities.

 

[swerve]

^ From the WP article:
...
A far bigger problem was the supply of 155mm shells, which would enable Ukraine to compete with Russia’s vast artillery arsenal. The Pentagon calculated that Kyiv needed 90,000 or more a month. While U.S. production was increasing, it was barely more than a tenth of that.

14000 per month in 2021, before the war. 28000 per month in 2023.

Direct or indirect has little relevance (none at all, actually) when the final destination and purpose is known. in other words, South Korea had supplied artillery ammunition to Ukraine.

Legally, it makes a lot of difference.

The 100,000 you are referring to was supplied in 2022.

Yes. I said that.

 

[koxinga]

PM Modi has arrived in Russia for his state visit. The trade deficit continues to grow as India imports more and more cheap Russian oil.

India plays the "Great Game" well, considering the West depends on India to counter balance China, giving them a free pass. The relationship between the three powers is interesting to say the least.

PM Modi arrives in Moscow, to hold talks with Russian President Putin

https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/india-s-trade-deficit-with-russia-widens-to-57-billion-in-fy24-124070700291_1.html

 

[Redshift]

PM Modi has arrived in Russia for his state visit. The trade deficit continues to grow as India imports more and more cheap Russian oil.

India plays the "Great Game" well, considering the West depends on India to counter balance China, giving them a free pass. The relationship between the three powers is interesting to say the least.

PM Modi arrives in Moscow, to hold talks with Russian President Putin

https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/india-s-trade-deficit-with-russia-widens-to-57-billion-in-fy24-124070700291_1.html

China/India/Russia is as stable as plutonium

 

[koxinga]

China/India/Russia is as stable as plutonium

Well, the Russians and Chinese are unapologetic about their relationship of mutual convenience. The terms of engagements are practical, not subjected to a whims of a snap election or a lousy election debate. I would argue that it is reasonably consistent for what it is.

India gets a free pass (e.g CAATSA wavier for buying Russian S-400s/jets, no penalties for buying Russian oil, implicit support for the junta in Myanmar) from the West. It is a same, interest based decision by the West.

 

[seaspear]

Im not so sure that Russia is in a good position to be able to quickly meet India's needs with weapons

Russia, India agree to speed up delivery of military spare parts

PM raised issue with Putin: Kwatra; first acknowledgement of delay

indianexpress.com

this article suggests India has in the past had issues with quality of such weapons supplied

The Loss of India: The war in Ukraine is depriving Russia of its largest arms market, which it will be unable to replace

India has relied almost entirely on Soviet and Russian weapons since the 1960s, but is now rapidly diversifying its defence imports due to international sanctions, the technological regression of the Russian military-industrial complex and its inability to ensure stable supplies. The war in...

re-russia.net

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The Russian government has to take more care of their relationship with Armenia. It is of course complicated, because Russia also wants to have a good connection with Azerbaijan and Turkye, but sooner or later Armenia will maybe sell their Iskander-E systems to the americans.

Armenia launches military drills with US amid souring ties with Russia

The move reflects Armenia's efforts to strengthen ties with the U.S. and other Western allies amid strained relations with old ally Russia.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Larry_L]

Tatyana Bakalchuk, a self made Billionaire, and owner of wildberries is divorcing her husband while merging her company with an advertising firm. Putin has blessed the merger, while Ramzan Kadyrov is publicly supporting her husband who is calling the merger a hostile takeover. The new company plans to compete with Amazon, and Ali Baba creating a payment system that bypasses swift. At least that is what I read???

В Кремле подтвердили поручение Путина поддержать объединение Wildberries с Russ - RETAILER.ru

Накануне стало известно о поручение Путина замглавы администрации президента Максиму Орешкину содействовать сделке.

retailer.ru

Wildberries Founder Announces Divorce as Husband Enlists Kadyrov to Fight ‘Hostile Takeover’ - The Moscow Times

Russia’s wealthiest woman Tatiana Bakalchuk has announced that she is divorcing her husband and business partner Vladislav Bakalchuk, who is seeking the help of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov to fight what he characterized as a “hostile takeover” of the leading online retailer Wildberries. “I...

www.themoscowtimes.com

Chechnya’s leader says a retail merger approved by Putin is a ‘hostile takeover’ executed by ‘devils.’ How a family feud over the future of Wildberries became a public scandal. — Meduza

The head of the Chechen government, Ramzan Kadyrov, shared a video on Tuesday showing him meeting with Vladislav Bakalchuk, the husband of Tatyana Bakalchuk, Russia’s wealthiest woman and the founder of Wildberries, the country’s biggest online retailer. In the footage, Mr. Bakalchuk complains...

meduza.io

 

[Redshift]

Well, the Russians and Chinese are unapologetic about their relationship of mutual convenience. The terms of engagements are practical, not subjected to a whims of a snap election or a lousy election debate. I would argue that it is reasonably consistent for what it is.

India gets a free pass (e.g CAATSA wavier for buying Russian S-400s/jets, no penalties for buying Russian oil, implicit support for the junta in Myanmar) from the West. It is a same, interest based decision by the West.

It is still a very unstable threesome, convenience is one thing, border disputes and wars are an open sore between India and China.