News about T-90 upgrade plan

[Battlefront.com]

I don’t know you very well Steve, but you strike me as a man of absolutes from what I have observed. However international politics are anything but… No one is talking about us attacking Chinese shipping, or of Russia actually using the nukes… a simple reminder that such option is possible, while extremely unlikely is all that is needed to advance strategic and diplomatic agenda…

Oh, I'm a man of gray areas big time However, there are courses of action which start down a road of chain reactions which can not be controlled by the side who started the action. Why do you think the West is so very hesitant about sending lethal aid to Ukraine even though it is both legal and, from Ukraine's standpoint, moral? Because Russia has already stated that it's something they will retaliate against. Big time.

I'll throw this back at you. If the US cut off China's energy supply by embargoing its maritime activities, what exactly do you think the Chinese response might be?

As for China trying for redundancy in its energy supply and/or something that is more resilient... well, no kidding they're trying to do that. Why wouldn't they? They're doing a lot of deals with Russia's southern neighbors too, which Russia's got its fingers in but doesn't have complete control over. Sensible to do, but it doesn't really change the dynamics between China and the US in any meaningful way unless one side is looking to start a war.

 

Prices for what? Pipelines? Construction equipment? Russian Labor? Everything that I’ve read indicates to me that the deal is still very much in a making. It might take quite a bit before it actually materializes; but that’s how Chinese tend to do business, and I for one can’t blame them.

Currently, unless things have changed, the Russians are contractually obligated to pay for the pipeline's construction. This is not a negotiating point, this is what the Russians already agreed to. But the thing is they don't have the $70b estimated cost of making it and they've already asked the Chinese to lend them the money and the Chinese said no. In order to cut costs Russia proposed an alternative route that is more favorable to Russia but obligates the Chinese to do a major amount of work on their end to connect to the proposed new location. It is also highly mountainous and there is some doubts as to the engineering feasibility of it in the first place.

That's the way it was when I last I've looked into. Has it changed or is this a fair assessment of where things stand?

 

I would love to hear your argument explaining why “Strength of Siberia” is not mutually beneficial to both countries.

It would if the deal were structured differently. As it is, the price and obligations placed on Russia's shoulders make it a poor deal. And that's not just me who concluded that. Quite a few experts at the time came to the same conclusion and have not wavered from it.

As you say, the Chinese are extremely good at negotiating. Putin was in a very, very tight spot at the time. He needed something to distract people from the loss of business to Europe as a result of cutting off their gas backfiring. The deal with the Chinese had been on the negotiating table for 10+ years and the two things (reportedly) that they couldn't come to agreement on was the price and who would pay for the pipeline. Lo and behold the deal suddenly goes through and Russia caved on both of the sticking points. Putin got the temporary PR boost from the move, and now it's in trouble (as far as I know).

Here's an article from April "Doubts Rise on Russia-China Gas Deal":

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/doubts-rise-on-russia-china-gas-deal-04062015110032.html

 

It’s funny how they can sell super expensive jets and AD systems (amongst others), but all of the sudden their new tanks (if they are actually worth the price) would be discarded by potential buyers… Again, I am not trying to argue, but I simply fail to see your logic here.

I enjoy a debate, which is what we're having. In fact, I asked someone to challenge my assertions. Not because I think I'm 100% correct, but because I can't seem to figure out where I'm wrong.

With that in mind, isn't that more logical to gauge future tank sales based on past tank sales (apples) rather than other systems which aren't even remotely related (oranges and bananas)? I think so and it's why I keep referring back to the T-90. By your logic the world should be lousy with them, but that's not the case even 22+ years after it was introduced. In fact, the much more expensive Abrams has been exported in larger numbers to more countries. Leo 2 has also sold more than the T-90.

 

ORRLy? Like India, Indonesia, Algeria, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, South and Central America (amongst others) – Yeah, Western weapon manufactures would rather be caught dead than selling to those scrubs. Now handing out used Leo2A4s at bargain prices – that’s what puts us head and shoulders above Russia (and China for that matter)… Right…

I don't understand what your point is, or at least how it interacts with the one I made.

 

I think that a few decades are quite a stretch, but yeah… it would take a bit before Armat is a viable offering for export.

T-90 was available for production in 1993. 25 years later and there's roughly 2100 in use today and it took well into the 2000s for that number to get to the half way point. One can argue that the 1990s were extremely unkind to Russia's own production, which is true, but that's going to be the case for Russian in the next few years minimum as well. And Russia's internal economic dynamics shouldn't have much of a negative effect on exports. In fact, it should have a positive impact.

 

My main problem with your argument though, is that you only focus on its price and completely ignore potential force multiplier benefits that it could offer (which might be well worth the price). Now for a millionth time -I really don’t know if it really offers those benefits nor do I care (for now); but it is a huge logical fallacy to only look at a product’s price outside of its features andplacement (as they would say in business school).

I discussed the "force multiplier" in other threads and touched on it here. Two primary points:

1. If the price is in the $7m range then it is no longer cost competitive (in a major way) with Western tanks which, probably, are going to be equal if not superior to Armata (we don't know for sure). If the price is more like $5m range and it is roughly equal with a more expensive Western tank, then that's a different story. So this one is definitely a "what do you think is more likely" situation. In the long Armata thread I made my position clear about my reading of the tealeaves.

2. Most of Russia's clients would probably rather have 10 T-90s and 5 Armatas (at the same equivalent cost) even if the Armata is twice as good. That's based on past history and general thinking of states which tend to purchase Soviet/Russian hardware.

 

Yep, no doubt. So by your logic should they stick to popping out Type 88s or maybe trying something a bit more revolutionary?

I don't know, but the Chinese are capable (very capable) of challenging Russian technologies in the near future. Both on price and on features. Heck, they even have the US pretty concerned about what's coming up in the near future. Though personally I think they're going to stumble around a bit more before they hit their stride.

 

LOL. So you see the current state of geopolitical affairs saying in a status quo for as long as we can imagine? That’s an odd line of thinking for a historian. If we are to follow your logic, why do we bother decking out M1A2s if all we need are some Humvees and good old USAF to win any foreseeable conflict?

I hardly think the geopolitical state of things will remain static. That's silly Therefore, you've misunderstood my point. Russia's non-NATO neighbors get their equipment from who? Russia. Russia can therefore always ensure that they have an equipment edge over its neighbors. More importantly, Russia's military is better run and funded than any of its non-NATO neighbors (though Ukraine is changing rapidly to challenge that). It is also larger. So what is a country like Armenia going to do if they want to break out of Russian orbit and Russia opposes it with military force? Lose. And they'd lose just as quickly and totally without Armata being in the mix.

As for NATO neighbors... it can't win against NATO. Period. Armata can't change the equation.

Personally, I don't think it will matter very soon. The current regime in Moscow is in decline, perhaps steep decline. It is unlikely to regain its footing any time soon. At least not with the current bunch in power, nor with their likely replacements (i.e. as bad if not worse). Ukraine is gone permanently, Belarus is more cautious than ever, and even little countries like Moldova and Armenia are taking steps to get rid of Kremlin manipulation and exploitation. I'm not saying an Arab Spring is coming any time soon, but it's pretty obvious that the Russian Empire Part 3 is in major decline.

 

Or does your line of thinking only apply to undermining anything that Russians are doing, while the same standard does not apply to us and our “friends”? I’m just sayin….

Not sure what your point here is, but the defense industries in the West will keep on chugging along with or without Armata. And unlike Russia, the West can afford it. Well, for longer than Russia can at least.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

 

Why on Earth would it take two years to train a driver?! I know a former Marine who, when a group of men was asked by an officer "Anyone know how to drive a tank?" lied and said he did. He jumped in, looked at the switches and controls, followed the instructions on the placards, fired it up and off they went a mile or so up the road. He said it handled better than most cars. Granted, this is obviously not the full range of a tank driver's necessary skill set, and maybe the Russians are still doing the driver-mechanic thing, but taking two years to train a driver strikes me as being fundamentally insane on the face of it.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

The 2 year figure came from the Russian MoD. Obviously it wouldn't take that long to get the driver to learn how to drive the tank. Drivers are responsible for a lot of responsibilities other than driving, such as maintenance and trouble shooting. Armata is a very complex vehicle by all counts, therefore more training is needed.

Steve

[DreDay]

The 2 year figure came from the Russian MoD. Obviously it wouldn't take that long to get the driver to learn how to drive the tank. Drivers are responsible for a lot of responsibilities other than driving, such as maintenance and trouble shooting. Armata is a very complex vehicle by all counts, therefore more training is needed.

Steve

 

Source please?

[DreDay]

Oh, I'm a man of gray areas big time However, there are courses of action which start down a road of chain reactions which can not be controlled by the side who started the action. Why do you think the West is so very hesitant about sending lethal aid to Ukraine even though it is both legal and, from Ukraine's standpoint, moral? Because Russia has already stated that it's something they will retaliate against. Big time.

I'll throw this back at you. If the US cut off China's energy supply by embargoing its maritime activities, what exactly do you think the Chinese response might be?

As for China trying for redundancy in its energy supply and/or something that is more resilient... well, no kidding they're trying to do that. Why wouldn't they? They're doing a lot of deals with Russia's southern neighbors too, which Russia's got its fingers in but doesn't have complete control over. Sensible to do, but it doesn't really change the dynamics between China and the US in any meaningful way unless one side is looking to start a war.

 

Currently, unless things have changed, the Russians are contractually obligated to pay for the pipeline's construction. This is not a negotiating point, this is what the Russians already agreed to. But the thing is they don't have the $70b estimated cost of making it and they've already asked the Chinese to lend them the money and the Chinese said no. In order to cut costs Russia proposed an alternative route that is more favorable to Russia but obligates the Chinese to do a major amount of work on their end to connect to the proposed new location. It is also highly mountainous and there is some doubts as to the engineering feasibility of it in the first place.

That's the way it was when I last I've looked into. Has it changed or is this a fair assessment of where things stand?

 

It would if the deal were structured differently. As it is, the price and obligations placed on Russia's shoulders make it a poor deal. And that's not just me who concluded that. Quite a few experts at the time came to the same conclusion and have not wavered from it.

As you say, the Chinese are extremely good at negotiating. Putin was in a very, very tight spot at the time. He needed something to distract people from the loss of business to Europe as a result of cutting off their gas backfiring. The deal with the Chinese had been on the negotiating table for 10+ years and the two things (reportedly) that they couldn't come to agreement on was the price and who would pay for the pipeline. Lo and behold the deal suddenly goes through and Russia caved on both of the sticking points. Putin got the temporary PR boost from the move, and now it's in trouble (as far as I know).

Here's an article from April "Doubts Rise on Russia-China Gas Deal":

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/doubts-rise-on-russia-china-gas-deal-04062015110032.html

 

I enjoy a debate, which is what we're having. In fact, I asked someone to challenge my assertions. Not because I think I'm 100% correct, but because I can't seem to figure out where I'm wrong.

With that in mind, isn't that more logical to gauge future tank sales based on past tank sales (apples) rather than other systems which aren't even remotely related (oranges and bananas)? I think so and it's why I keep referring back to the T-90. By your logic the world should be lousy with them, but that's not the case even 22+ years after it was introduced. In fact, the much more expensive Abrams has been exported in larger numbers to more countries. Leo 2 has also sold more than the T-90.

 

I don't understand what your point is, or at least how it interacts with the one I made.

 

T-90 was available for production in 1993. 25 years later and there's roughly 2100 in use today and it took well into the 2000s for that number to get to the half way point. One can argue that the 1990s were extremely unkind to Russia's own production, which is true, but that's going to be the case for Russian in the next few years minimum as well. And Russia's internal economic dynamics shouldn't have much of a negative effect on exports. In fact, it should have a positive impact.

 

I discussed the "force multiplier" in other threads and touched on it here. Two primary points:

1. If the price is in the $7m range then it is no longer cost competitive (in a major way) with Western tanks which, probably, are going to be equal if not superior to Armata (we don't know for sure). If the price is more like $5m range and it is roughly equal with a more expensive Western tank, then that's a different story. So this one is definitely a "what do you think is more likely" situation. In the long Armata thread I made my position clear about my reading of the tealeaves.

2. Most of Russia's clients would probably rather have 10 T-90s and 5 Armatas (at the same equivalent cost) even if the Armata is twice as good. That's based on past history and general thinking of states which tend to purchase Soviet/Russian hardware.

 

I don't know, but the Chinese are capable (very capable) of challenging Russian technologies in the near future. Both on price and on features. Heck, they even have the US pretty concerned about what's coming up in the near future. Though personally I think they're going to stumble around a bit more before they hit their stride.

 

I hardly think the geopolitical state of things will remain static. That's silly Therefore, you've misunderstood my point. Russia's non-NATO neighbors get their equipment from who? Russia. Russia can therefore always ensure that they have an equipment edge over its neighbors. More importantly, Russia's military is better run and funded than any of its non-NATO neighbors (though Ukraine is changing rapidly to challenge that). It is also larger. So what is a country like Armenia going to do if they want to break out of Russian orbit and Russia opposes it with military force? Lose. And they'd lose just as quickly and totally without Armata being in the mix.

As for NATO neighbors... it can't win against NATO. Period. Armata can't change the equation.

Personally, I don't think it will matter very soon. The current regime in Moscow is in decline, perhaps steep decline. It is unlikely to regain its footing any time soon. At least not with the current bunch in power, nor with their likely replacements (i.e. as bad if not worse). Ukraine is gone permanently, Belarus is more cautious than ever, and even little countries like Moldova and Armenia are taking steps to get rid of Kremlin manipulation and exploitation. I'm not saying an Arab Spring is coming any time soon, but it's pretty obvious that the Russian Empire Part 3 is in major decline.

 

Not sure what your point here is, but the defense industries in the West will keep on chugging along with or without Armata. And unlike Russia, the West can afford it. Well, for longer than Russia can at least.

Steve

Steve, I honestly don't have 3 spare hours to give a detailed reply to your post. Perhaps one day we could grab a beer and chat about that stuff. May I suggest breaking up your posts into smaller segments so that they would be a little more scalable? I don't mean it as an insult, just a friendly suggestion.

[Battlefront.com]

Source please?

Dang, I spent 10 minutes looking for it and came up with nothing. Problem is the original article was in Russian on a Russian news site. So there's nothing solid for me to look for in my browser history, though I did try. Unfortunately I don't see any place on this or the Beta Forum where I cited the link. It was earlier than June 18th and I think the article was fairly recent, so it would be in early June.

From what I remember of the article it was a short piece (4-5 paragraphs) with the prominent part being a one paragraph quote from, IIRC, the head of Russia's armored forces. Or possibly the head of armored forces for a Military District. Some sort of senior grade officer. The quote was in the context of saying how how advanced Armata is and the driver training was meant to illustrate that point.

I am absolutely sure he was not saying it would take 2 years to learn how to make the tank go forward, reverse, left and right. There's nothing that would take that long. Heck, I think even the Space Shuttle wouldn't take 2 years to learn how to fly. Oh, and I am also pretty sure I remember the qualifier "proficient" being used, which in this context means a sufficiently trained plus sufficient experience post training.

Note that it was phrased not as an absolute but more of an estimate. Which makes sense because they've not been around for two years yet It is quite possible that he is overestimating.

Sorry, that's the best I can do.

The point of me brining this up is not to say that Armata is crazy difficult to drive, just that compared to what it takes to effectively operate a T-72/90 it's an increase. That is definitely what this officer was saying.

Steve

[DreDay]

Dang, I spent 10 minutes looking for it and came up with nothing. Problem is the original article was in Russian on a Russian news site. So there's nothing solid for me to look for in my browser history, though I did try. Unfortunately I don't see any place on this or the Beta Forum where I cited the link. It was earlier than June 18th and I think the article was fairly recent, so it would be in early June.

From what I remember of the article it was a short piece (4-5 paragraphs) with the prominent part being a one paragraph quote from, IIRC, the head of Russia's armored forces. Or possibly the head of armored forces for a Military District. Some sort of senior grade officer. The quote was in the context of saying how how advanced Armata is and the driver training was meant to illustrate that point.

I am absolutely sure he was not saying it would take 2 years to learn how to make the tank go forward, reverse, left and right. There's nothing that would take that long. Heck, I think even the Space Shuttle wouldn't take 2 years to learn how to fly. Oh, and I am also pretty sure I remember the qualifier "proficient" being used, which in this context means a sufficiently trained plus sufficient experience post training.

Note that it was phrased not as an absolute but more of an estimate. Which makes sense because they've not been around for two years yet It is quite possible that he is overestimating.

Sorry, that's the best I can do.

The point of me brining this up is not to say that Armata is crazy difficult to drive, just that compared to what it takes to effectively operate a T-72/90 it's an increase. That is definitely what this officer was saying.

Steve

 

Fair enough. I appreicate you spending the time to research it. Just out of curiosity - what would make T-14 so difficult to drive? I mean it uses a pretty conventional mechanized setup, and if anythig - it probably has some electornic controls to assist the driver... Now if we are talking about training a mechanic that would service and do maintanace on such an advanced machine, then I can see how it would take extensive training.. But here is a kicker - Russian word for tank driver is "mechanic", so perhaps the officer in question was talking about the mechanic the way we think of it (i.e. maintanance NCO); but the autotranslate made it sound like he was talking about a driver? Just a theory...

Edited June 26, 2015 by DreDay

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, I honestly don't have 3 spare hours to give a detailed reply to your post. Perhaps one day we could grab a beer and chat about that stuff. May I suggest breaking up your posts into smaller segments so that they would be a little more scalable? I don't mean it as an insult, just a friendly suggestion.

Yeah, it did turn into something larger. I have the benefit of thinking fast and typing with blazing speed. I don't know how many words a minute I can type, but I think I could crush most executive secretaries in typing contests

Main points consolidated for the heck of it:

1. China doesn't need to fear the US cutting off its maritime access because it would result in war (of that I have NO doubt), However, it is obviously sensible for it to diversify its energy supply anyway. Which is why it's working with Kazakhstan more than Russia even.

http://www.oilgas-events.com/market-insights/global-developments-kazakhstan/what-does-the-new-deal-with-china-mean-for-kazakhstan-/801768922

2. The China Russia deal is stalled out as far as I can tell. You can see the specific cited above. If you have something to show the contrary, please do share.

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/doubts-rise-on-russia-china-gas-deal-04062015110032.html

3. I do not think the Armata program is good for Russia because it can't afford it:

http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/

4. When projecting demand for Russian tanks look at past Russian tank sales, not sales of AAA or aircraft. There's been few customers for the T-90 in the past 20+ years even though it is superior to the T-72. Cost is certainly an issue as many countries opted for more T-72s in the same time period. Therefore, it is a pretty safe assumption that Armata will not sell better than T-90, but in fact worse.

5. Force multiplier is not something most of Russia's traditional clients seem overly enamored with. Price and, by extension, quantity are what they go for. T-72s are cheap, T-90s are becoming cheaper, Armata is top shelf. Based on the previous top shelf sales, Armata will not be a quantity export item for 1-2 decades.

6. I do not think the geopolitical state is going to remain the same. But Armata buys Russia no improvement in its geopolitical standing. In fact, I can make an extremely sound argument that it harms it. Definitely the money would be better spent on fixing Russia's ailing economy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Fair enough. I appreicate you spending the time to research it. Just out of curiosity - what would make T-14 so difficult to drive? I mean it uses a pretty conventional mechanized setup, and if anythig - it probably has some electornic controls to assist the driver... Now if we are talking about training a mechanic that would service and do maintanace on such an advanced machine, then I can see how it would take extensive training.. But here is a kicker - Russian word for tank driver is "mechanic", so perhaps the officer in question was talking about the mechanic the way we think of it (i.e. maintanance NCO); but the autotranslate made it sound like he was talking about a driver? Just a theory...

My guess is the same as you, which is the time is more-or-less on the mechanical side. The driving part can't be too hard to master. However, if you put a driver into the field without this experience you get a lot of abandoned vehicles because they break down FREQUENTLY. Ukraine is a pretty good example of that.

Note that driver/mechanic is a standard coupling of responsibilities for almost all nations going back to when vehicles were first brought onto the battlefield. I've owned a few military vehicles and the "driver's manual" included some pretty invasive and comprehensive maintenance stuff (i.e. not just how to change the oil).

BTW, basic training for a US tank crewman is 25 weeks (6 months). That doesn't mean proficient necessarily, rather it means competent. Works well for a 4 year enlistment, not so well for a 1 year conscript. Which underscores Russia's need to move to contract soldiers for even basic things like tank driving.

Steve

[DreDay]

Main points consolidated for the heck of it:

1. China doesn't need to fear the US cutting off its maritime access because it would result in war (of that I have NO doubt), However, it is obviously sensible for it to diversify its energy supply anyway. Which is why it's working with Kazakhstan more than Russia even.

Again, we absolutely do not need a military confrontation to threaten Chinese energy shipments. Imagine a scenario where we decide (for right or wrong) to restrain China and low and behold - most of Chinese neighbors (not without our wise leadership of course) suddenly decide to close their maritime borders to cargo ships headed for China because… oh I don’t know... they execute dissidents, or torture pandas, or occupy Tibet, or through their weight around in South China sea… or eat cats… Sounds farfetched? Think again… Of course we would never do such a thing and China has nothing to fear; they can always take our word for it – that has always worked out well in global politics…

 

http://www.oilgas-events.com/market-insights/global-developments-kazakhstan/what-does-the-new-deal-with-china-mean-for-kazakhstan-/801768922

2. The China Russia deal is stalled out as far as I can tell. You can see the specific cited above. If you have something to show the contrary, please do share.

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/doubts-rise-on-russia-china-gas-deal-04062015110032.html

Stalled is definitely an overstatement. It has been in negotiations for 15 years and the breakthrough was achieved when China threw Russia a huge bone by agreeing to their requested rate of $350-$400 per 1000 cubic meters of gas right after the South Stream was sabotaged by European Energy Commission. There are actually several other deals that have been signed since then. And they will certainly take many years and many trials to implement. But the official strategy by both governments is very much geared to push through these pipelines. This was most vividly reiterated by Mr. Xi Jiping last month on May 8th.

Now I can find you dozens articles (almost all in English) telling us how it would never work, and of course they are all written by unscrupulous analysts that have nothing to do with our LNG companies that would take a massive hit if and when such pipelines are built.. We all know how unbiased our business (and not only business) media is.

 

3. I do not think the Armata program is good for Russia because it can't afford it:

http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/

Again, I personally don’t care to discuss Armata till it materializes in a real combat-ready vehicle; maybe it is over-priced, or perhaps it is worth every penny… Only time will tell and for now I simply don’t know enough to care one way or another.

4. When projecting demand for Russian tanks look at past Russian tank sales, not sales of AAA or aircraft. There's been few customers for the T-90 in the past 20+ years even though it is superior to the T-72. Cost is certainly an issue as many countries opted for more T-72s in the same time period. Therefore, it is a pretty safe assumption that Armata will not sell better than T-90, but in fact worse.

Again, I simply don’t care to make any predictions about Armata right now, but if it is worth its price it would sell fine just like other Russian weapon platforms. If it is overpriced, or offers very few improvements over older models (like T-90) it would not sell well. Same logic works for all other weapon systems (politics aside); I don’t understand why you think that some unique rules apply to tanks.

 

5. Force multiplier is not something most of Russia's traditional clients seem overly enamored with. Price and, by extension, quantity are what they go for. T-72s are cheap, T-90s are becoming cheaper, Armata is top shelf. Based on the previous top shelf sales, Armata will not be a quantity export item for 1-2 decades.

Lol, would you care to give me an extensive list of M1A1/2 buyers that have a real appreciation for force multipliers? Who could challenge the military organization and might of such powerhouses as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq? Perhaps weapon purchases follow a bit more complicated model than what you outlay above?

 

6. I do not think the geopolitical state is going to remain the same. But Armata buys Russia no improvement in its geopolitical standing. In fact, I can make an extremely sound argument that it harms it. Definitely the money would be better spent on fixing Russia's ailing economy.

Guess what Steve - they had tried just that (with extensive support and oversight from us) throughout the 90s, and we all know how it went. Wonna tell them to do it all over again? You are going to learn a lot of interesting words in Russian very quickly.

On a side note Steve, I have studied Russian foreign and military affairs for many years in my prior life, traveled to the region over a dozen times, and still keep in touch with a couple of what you would call “power elites” there. There are plenty of things to critizes Russia for; and they are also plenty to praise them for as well. But reciting our media coverage of Russia (which is at least 90% fugazi) and then drawing conclusions that match this garbage word for word makes for a very lazy argument which, if I may say so - is below you. I would challenge you to try seeing things from a Russian perspective (amongst others), if you really want to get the full and objective picture. I am not saying that you should embrace their mentality (I personally don’t), but they do know what they want and where they are going; and that in itself is well worth trying to understand, because you will more than likely learn new things about our government and political establishment when you look at it through somebody else's prizm..

Edited June 26, 2015 by DreDay

[Sublime]

powerhouse like Iraq? That powerhouse is getting its butt handed to it in engagenents of 35k men vs 1k in Iraqs favor. i wouldnt classify Iraq as a powerhouse. in fact i think Iraq eventually wont exist and become a failed state. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in one nation? One regime or the other is always $hitting on its religious opposites and the Kurds generally hate every regime and want their own nation. I rlly just foresee a Kurdistan, part of Iran and some third Islamic state for the Sunnis. If the Sunni minority survives ISIS, Iran and emerging Kurdish power to have their own state in my scenario..

[antaress73]

He was being sarcastic

[Sublime]

Though the Saudi Arabian military may not be the best in the world (i simply do not know) i know rhe vast sums of moneu the Saudis have are nothing to sneeze at.

[Battlefront.com]

Again, we absolutely do not need a military confrontation to threaten Chinese energy shipments.

If the US did this, what would be the result? China weeping into its rice? No, they would retaliate. Most likely militarily, but certainly economically. And even if they did nothing, which is totally implausible, the US and European economies would collapse within a few days because if China has no energy, Wal-Mart has not products to sell. Now, pray tell... what set of conditions would exist that would have the US and Europe self destruct their own economies and risk military retaliation?

 

Stalled is definitely an overstatement. It has been in negotiations for 15 years and the breakthrough was achieved when China threw Russia a huge bone by agreeing to their requested rate of $350-$400 per 1000 cubic meters

Er... what deal are you talking about? The one that Russia actually signed required Russia to cave on its asking price and, in fact, agreed to a lower price than it gives most of its best European customers. Which makes sense because Russia was desperate and the Chinese are VERY good at negotiations. Probably the best in the world:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-09/putin-seen-signing-china-gas-deal-as-crisis-forces-russia-s-hand

Plus, the price is fixed at that rate for 30 years. For a volatile commodity like gas? That's really bad for Russia.

 

Now I can find you dozens articles (almost all in English) telling us how it would never work, and of course they are all written by unscrupulous analysts that have nothing to do with our LNG companies that would take a massive hit if and when such pipelines are built.. We all know how unbiased our business (and not only business) media is.

And there's an equally strong counter tin-foil hat position run by the other half of the industry. I'd rather look at the known facts and draw my own conclusions rather than rely upon either.

 

 

Again, I personally don’t care to discuss Armata till it materializes in a real combat-ready vehicle; maybe it is over-priced, or perhaps it is worth every penny… Only time will tell and for now I simply don’t know enough to care one way or another.

Interesting that you don't want to speculate about Armata's price or viability, but you're willing to put yourself way out on a limb for this gas deal and are willing to write off any criticism or doubt as a major conspiracy theory.

The fact is we do have enough information to evaluate Armata's probable future. Just like I had enough information to predict that Russia would invade Ukraine and take Crimea then seed eastern and southern Ukraine with agitators long before Maidan was even thought of. Those who do not look at the past and relate it to the facts in hand are forever going to be playing catchup on what happens next compared to those who do.

 

Again, I simply don’t care to make any predictions about Armata right now, but if it is worth its price it would sell fine just like other Russian weapon platforms. If it is overpriced, or offers very few improvements over older models (like T-90) it would not sell well. Same logic works for all other weapon systems (politics aside); I don’t understand why you think that some unique rules apply to tanks.

Of course I don't think it's unique! That's why I keep pointing out the track record of the T-90 for Pete's sake! The T-90 is superior to the T-72 and its sales have languished. Not only proportional to other Russian military sales, but compared to the much higher priced and much better Western tanks.

 

Lol, would you care to give me an extensive list of M1A1/2 buyers that have a real appreciation for force multipliers? Who could challenge the military organization and might of such powerhouses as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq? Perhaps weapon purchases follow a bit more complicated model than what you outlay above?

Sigh... you are still not getting the point. This is all about those customers who realistically might by from Russia, not those who are solidly ensconced in the Western sphere of influence. What Saudi Arabia buys is just as relevant to Russia as what The Netherlands buys because neither one is going to buy from Russia. At least not tanks.

 

Guess what Steve - they had tried just that (with extensive support and oversight from us) throughout the 90s, and we all know how it went. Wonna tell them to do it all over again? You are going to learn a lot of interesting words in Russian very quickly.

So what you are saying is that since they tried to adjust their command economy one time, and the likes of Putin caused it to fail, that they're NEVER going to try again? Interesting. I guess Russia is doomed to permanent 3rd world status.

 

On a side note Steve, I have studied Russian foreign and military affairs for many years in my prior life, traveled to the region over a dozen times, and still keep in touch with a couple of what you would call “power elites” there. There are plenty of things to critizes Russia for; and they are also plenty to praise them for as well. But reciting our media coverage of Russia (which is at least 90% fugazi) and then drawing conclusions that match this garbage word for word makes for a very lazy argument which, if I may say so - is below you. I would challenge you to try seeing things from a Russian perspective (amongst others), if you really want to get the full and objective picture. I am not saying that you should embrace their mentality (I personally don’t), but they do know what they want and where they are going; and that in itself is well worth trying to understand, because you will more than likely learn new things about our government and political establishment when you look at it through somebody else's prizm..

Oh boy, we're back to your favorite activity... trying to undermine my credibility! I was wondering how long it would take for you to go there (again). The fact that you can not denny is that I've had a very good handle on what Russia's actions have been years before they came about. You can dance around that issue as much as you like, but it is well documented. And since you acknowledge that I am neither an extremely lucky guesser or possessor of clairvoyance, this has left you in a bit of a quandary because you can't explain how I came into this sort of knowledge. What with my utter lack of knowledge of the Russian language and my access being limited to the "90% fugazi" sources at my disposal.

Contrary to your poor understanding of my world view and capacity to see things from the other side of the coin, I understand Russia pretty well. I understand what motivates it, I understand why it acts the way it does. It is how I knew Putin would invade Ukraine, take Crimea, and create a false civil war for Russia's benefit. And I knew this years before Maidan took place. So why did it do this? Why is it STILL doing it? Because it's consistent with the Russian government's world view and it's concept of power.

I am no more surprised by the protests in Armenia than I am with the Russian political reaction to it (i.e. the West and/or Ukraine is behind it). Both the source of the unrest and Russia's reaction to it are entirely predictable if one understands Russia. Which is why I've been waiting for things like this to happen. And here's another thing... I'm expecting a lot more of them to happen sooner rather than later. Both externally and internally.

Now, I could adopt a similar mindset as you and suggest that your world view is the result of you having bought into a distorted and largely fictional world view propagated by an authoritarian regime. But what purpose would that serve? I'd rather stick to debating your arguments rather than casting aspersions on your mindset/knowledge. It would be very nice if you could manage to do the same.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

And... we're straying too far off topic again. If DreDay wishes to respond, I'll let him have the last word. I doubt we'll ever see even eye to nose on what's going on

Steve