Russian army under equipped?

[Kinophile]

Mobilizing for war. 

Interesting wording. Although it sounds like these reforms will really only come to fruiting 5-10 years from now.

Until then I suspect Putin will continue his stalling game, needling  and threatening, with the odd opportunistic local campaign. He'll build a more robust, modern and deeper pool of armed forces to hand off to a picked successor and then retire into stately glory. 

What his successor does is the real,  unanswerable question.

But untilPutin won't force anything truly serious or debilitating to the Russian armed forces. Certainly not an actual fight with NATO. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

Truly... All these acts of modernization and reforms is because Putin will like to hand over his armed forces to the next dictator who will pick a fight with NATO  ok jokes aside, I'm liking the rate of these modernizations. I envy it, wish when I was in the VDV my unit was equipped with the BMD-4Ms... Would have been way cooler. BMD-2s are trash compared to the BMD-4M in every category. How ever I enjoyed the fact that we could be dropped dozens of kilometers away from our objective and independently reach the area of operations crossing rivers and obstacles with ease. But having these BMD-4Ms would have been way more better, now the VDV can do night operations with those vehicles. Dam it man!!!  

[Battlefront.com]

On 6/26/2016 at 4:38 PM, ikalugin said:

Another interesting point to note is that Ground Forces (and Russian Armed Forces overall) are expanding, Ground Forces plan to expand by ~1/3 through 2015-2021 time frame and this is done by expanding the pool of contract troops rapibly (298-352 growth in 2015, up to 499k overall by 2020).

Unless oil prices increase significantly from where they are at now (~$50 p/bbl) this expansion will require significant cuts to social spending programs.  Cuts that the government has said it needs to make to balance the budget, but so far have not done in practice.

Steve

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

Look on the bright side. It could've been BMD-1s!  This longish video is very good, but I couldn't help notice the guys like you are almost an afterthought in terms of being shown. With the exception of one sequence with the desantniki atop the vehicle prone (no one and buttoned generally) while river crossing , the VDV troopers really don't show up until late in the vid. Perhaps the various wild driving sequences rendered the passengers too ill to function? If not, who got the Dramine contract? What did catch my eye were the ability to raise and lower the entire hull, enabling some initially baffling and fascinating tactics, the retro rocket-assisted parachutes (something I knew of from the pre-BMD days) and the previously unknown to me ability of the BMD-1 to self emplace. I knew the T-72 could do this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything on this ref the BMD-1. Still, a most impressive vehicle--as long as it didn't get hit!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

Not my night. Here's the video I just discovered I somehow neglected to include.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

And to think I was thinking of getting a boring old boat!  And I didn't know it could compete with low riders with pneumatic risers!!!!  All it needs is a custom paint job and it would be ready for South Central.  Brilliant!

[ikalugin]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Unless oil prices increase significantly from where they are at now (~$50 p/bbl) this expansion will require significant cuts to social spending programs.  Cuts that the government has said it needs to make to balance the budget, but so far have not done in practice.

Steve

The expansion was planned before the drops in oil prices and so far (2014, 2015 and to some extend 2016) the data supports that the plans were not cut, if anything they were expanded. As the CSIS report says - we are preparing for a large scale war, not local hybrid operations.

Defense (and other critical) spending was and is balanced against stable (ie non oil/gas) incomes. Thus defense (and other critical) spending is not dependent on the oil prices. Thus defense spending would be maintained, if anything in 2015 there was a surplus of money (~1T rubles), due to delays in a number of procurement programs.

That is, unless you believe that the entirety (state reports, news items, etc) of reporting on Russian Armed Forces (and Ground Forces as a subset of those) expansion (formation of new units, expansion of existing units, hiring of new contract troops etc) in 2014 and 2015 (and to an extend - 2016) is falsified. You can read about other developments in BTR's post.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ikalugin

[General Melchid]

I'd like to ask any of our Russian posters who are familiar with GSR of the vehicles portrayed in BS if they are truly as ineffective as they appear to be.

I'm especially keen to hear from anyone who has actual use experience, in game they seem less effective then the mk 1 eyeball

[ikalugin]

In addition, If I may quote CINC Ground Forces (in interview to the Red Star, 29.09.2015):

"Уже в настоящее время в каждом из общевойсковых соединений созданы 1-2 батальонные тактические группы, полностью укомплектованные военнослужащими по контракту, представляющие собой мотострелковые (танковые) батальоны, усиленные танковыми (мотострелковыми) подразделениями, артиллерией, подразделениями ПВО, разведки, инженерных войск, РХБ защиты."

Translation (by your trully):
"At this time every combined arms unit {Brigade, Division, etc - by the translator} of Ground Forces we have 1-2 battalion tactical groups, fully stocked with contract troops (ie no conscripts), which are motorised rifle (or tank) battalions, reinforced with tank (motorised rifle) subunits, artillery, air defense, recon, engeniering troops, chemical defense troops."

Note the use of contract troops - destribution between units, vs concentration in "elite" units.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ikalugin

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The expansion was planned before the drops in oil prices and so far (2014, 2015 and to some extend 2016) the data supports that the plans were not cut, if anything they were expanded. As the CSIS report says - we are preparing for a large scale war, not local hybrid operations.

Defense (and other critical) spending was and is balanced against stable (ie non oil/gas) incomes. Thus defense (and other critical) spending is not dependent on the oil prices. Thus defense spending would be maintained, if anything in 2015 there was a surplus of money (~1T rubles), due to delays in a number of procurement programs.

That is, unless you believe that the entirety (state reports, news items, etc) of reporting on Russian Armed Forces (and Ground Forces as a subset of those) expansion (formation of new units, expansion of existing units, hiring of new contract troops etc) in 2014 and 2015 (and to an extend - 2016) is falsified. You can read about other developments in BTR's post.

You missed my point entirely.  I said it will be interesting to see how Russia can continue with these military spending programs without harming non-military spending needs.

It's simple math.  If you earn $1000 a year and have $900 worth of expenses you can manage very well without making any changes to your expenses.  But if you suddenly have only $600 worth of income and still have $900 worth of expenses... something has to change.  If you do not cut in one place then you have to make up for it in other places.

This is simple economics and Russia is not magically exempt from the rules.  Russia can ignore making cuts to the military spending if it choose to, but it will have to cut elsewhere to make up for it.  The Soviet Union largely collapsed because it made the mistake of prioritizing military spending over everything else.

Steve

[ikalugin]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You missed my point entirely.  I said it will be interesting to see how Russia can continue with these military spending programs without harming non-military spending needs.

It's simple math.  If you earn $1000 a year and have $900 worth of expenses you can manage very well without making any changes to your expenses.  But if you suddenly have only $600 worth of income and still have $900 worth of expenses... something has to change.  If you do not cut in one place then you have to make up for it in other places.

This is simple economics and Russia is not magically exempt from the rules.  Russia can ignore making cuts to the military spending if it choose to, but it will have to cut elsewhere to make up for it.  The Soviet Union largely collapsed because it made the mistake of prioritizing military spending over everything else.

Steve

Then your point was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you believe that the cuts in the social expenditures (or other events) would lead to collapse of Russian state in the relevant time frame.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ikalugin

[Sgt Joch]

4 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The expansion was planned before the drops in oil prices and so far (2014, 2015 and to some extend 2016) the data supports that the plans were not cut, if anything they were expanded. As the CSIS report says - we are preparing for a large scale war, not local hybrid operations.

 

Ikalugin, nice to see you back posting.

I would not put much stock in what CSIS posts on its open website. That is for public consumption and generally reflects the Government's publicly stated policy. The real intelligence estimates are confidential.

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

You missed my point entirely.  I said it will be interesting to see how Russia can continue with these military spending programs without harming non-military spending needs.

It's simple math.  If you earn $1000 a year and have $900 worth of expenses you can manage very well without making any changes to your expenses.  But if you suddenly have only $600 worth of income and still have $900 worth of expenses... something has to change.  If you do not cut in one place then you have to make up for it in other places.

This is simple economics and Russia is not magically exempt from the rules.  Russia can ignore making cuts to the military spending if it choose to, but it will have to cut elsewhere to make up for it.  The Soviet Union largely collapsed because it made the mistake of prioritizing military spending over everything else.

Steve

Steve , you keep pointing this concept out about how Russia cannot afford it.

But really, We live in a country that has proven you can overspend and not have the money for many, many years and just keep doing it.  So when is the US going to make its cuts??Seems to me, they are the perfect model on how to built a Military without the funds to do it.

So its just Simple economics as you said,  and The US will have to pay the price at some point also. Right???

 

 

 

 

 

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's simple math.  If you earn $1000 a year and have $900 worth of expenses you can manage very well without making any changes to your expenses.  But if you suddenly have only $600 worth of income and still have $900 worth of expenses... something has to change.  If you do not cut in one place then you have to make up for it in other places.

This is simple economics and Russia is not magically exempt from the rules.  Russia can ignore making cuts to the military spending if it choose to, but it will have to cut elsewhere to make up for it.  The Soviet Union largely collapsed because it made the mistake of prioritizing military spending over everything else.

Steve

It's a little too simplistic, as an economics example.

It ignores the possibility of going temporarily into debt to weather the storm, a standard move by any financial entity. Russia's isn't great (roughly a B-) but it's not actually far off the UK's right now. The main difference is that Russia's rating is seen as along term B-, with little chance for improving. The UK's is probably temporary but the absolute emptiness of political leadership over there right now is very very worrisome.

Also one can dig into one's reserves, such as Russia has been draining its two main *SWFs for a while now. Which, while finite, are still considerable. Russia has a helluva lot of foreign reserves, enough for a small window of reducing the economic pain. Once those reserves run out (and if sanctions are still in place) I would suspect Putin to get quite violent, diplomacy speaking, towards the West. He's not about to come begging to anyone. This isn't Greece...

But it's becoming quite possible that if Putin leaves the Donbass alone and also makes some token gestures towards resolution over the next 6 months that those sanctions (well, the EU ones at least) could be reduced in severity. 

The US ones are a whole other deal. The US is not exactly known for backtracking on sanctions once they're in place. 

 

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Soviet Union largely collapsed because it made the mistake of prioritizing military spending over everything else.

..and no one would cover their debts, while they had also run any reserves dry.

In comparison, during to WW2 the UK ran up a gigantic debt to the US that I believe is technically still being paid off? Or has been struck off? Not sure. Either way, there was someone reasonable who they could borrow from .

The USSR didn't have that and events inevitable began to unfold as they did.

 

_{*Sovereign Wealth Fund}

Edited June 28, 2016 by kinophile

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Steve , you keep pointing this concept out about how Russia cannot afford it.

But really, We live in a country that has proven you can overspend and not have the money for many, many years and just keep doing it.  So when is the US going to make its cuts??Seems to me, they are the perfect model on how to built a Military without the funds to do it.

So its just Simple economics as you said,  and The US will have to pay the price at some point also. Right???

Some say the US will have to pay the price as soon as the hedged dollar will loose a significant chunk of it's backing. Opec, foreign held reserves, economies operating on dollars and other financial creations almost no-one understands drive the reason that the US is basically allowed to keep the (virtual) dollar presses going. Political and military power enables the US to keep the worst threats at bay, at least in my opinion. It is interesting to see what will happen in Europe now that the 'quantitative easing' has been going on for a while here too. 
I think nobody really knows how these things will really work out since the value of (virtually) currency is basically just a mindgame based on the value adding events occuring inside economies with that particular currency. 

Anyway Russia can also turn on the money presses but they probably have more costs in hard foreign currency, Rubles don't account for much outside of Russia where the dollar does.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

It's a little too simplistic, as an economics example.

It ignores the possibility of going temporarily into debt to weather the storm, a standard move by any financial entity. Russia's isnt great (roughly a B-) but it's not actually far off the UK's right now. The main difference is that Russia's rating is seen as along term B-, with little chance for improving. The UK's is probably temporary but the absolute emptiness of political leadership over there right now is very very worrisome.

Also one can dig into one's reserves, such as Russia has been draining its two main *SWFs for a while now. Which, while finite, are still considerable. Russia has a helluva lot of foreign reserves, enough for a small window of reducing the economic pain. Once those reserves run out (and if sanctions are still in place) I would suspect Putin to get quite violent, diplomacy speaking, towards the West. He's not about to come begging to anyone. This isn't Greece...

But it's becoming quite possible that if Putin leaves the Donbass alone and also makes some token gestures towards resolution over the next 6 months that those sanctions (well, the EU ones at least) could be reduced in severity. 

The US ones are a whole other deal. The US is not exactly known for backtracking on sanctions once they're in place. 

_{*Sovereign Wealth Fund}

I'd think that a large chunk of Russian foreign reserves will be kept for dire situations like wars. In the event of an actual conflict with a serious foe, Russia will need those reserves for imports.

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I'd think that a large chunk of Russian foreign reserves will be kept for dire situations like wars. In the event of an actual conflict with a serious foe, Russia will need those reserves for imports.

Quite true. Most likely that they'll hit 50% left of one fund and then start pushing back very hard. Putin's no fool and won't waste his second fund on temporarily surviving sanctions. Still, technically, both funds are available.That alone is what's possibly keeping them above a C rating.

Either way, those Funds are at odds with @Battlefront.com / steve's contention - namely that economics will soon(ish) start to affect the political stability of the RF, and Putin's external policies. 

I'd alternately contend that Putin still has a few years of economic wiggle room. The Russian state has been steadily entrenching economically, domestically and specifically in terms of it's internal security apparatus. Russia is a long way off significant, sustained and potentially successful domestic discontent. And Putin won't blink at violent internal suppression- there will be no Maidan Square in Russia. It won't even get that close. Hell, even now, public demonstrations (ie not state organised) are effectively banned and physically prevented if attempted.

He jsut needs to out-wait the EU's resolve. That won't last - the EU is in a very unsettled state right now, he can seriously **** with us indirectly. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, ikalugin said:

Then your point was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you believe that the cuts in the social expenditures (or other events) would lead to collapse of Russian state in the relevant time frame.

While that is definitely a possibility (it was a significant factor in the last two major changes of Russian government), there's another possibility... a more balanced approach to spending.  That means the military has to give up on something so that the elderly don't starve.

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Steve , you keep pointing this concept out about how Russia cannot afford it.

But really, We live in a country that has proven you can overspend and not have the money for many, many years and just keep doing it.  So when is the US going to make its cuts??Seems to me, they are the perfect model on how to built a Military without the funds to do it.

So its just Simple economics as you said,  and The US will have to pay the price at some point also. Right???

Absolutely.  And it is not just the US.  Look around and you'll see plenty of countries facing massive, catastrophic even, consequences of misappropriation of wealth.  Brazil, China, pretty much every country in the EU (some way more than others), etc.  The difference is some countries are better suited to handle downturns than others.  Venezuela, for example, is an extreme example of "basket case".

 

9 minutes ago, kinophile said:

It's a little too simplistic, as an economics example.

It ignores the possibility of going temporarily into debt to weather the storm, a standard move by any financial entity. Russia's isnt great (roughly a B-) but it's not actually far off the UK's right now. The main difference is that Russia's rating is seen as along term B-, with little chance for improving. The UK's is probably temporary but the absolute emptiness of political leadership over there right now is very very worrisome.

Yes, taking on debt is certainly how nations (and companies and personal households) spend beyond their means.  Obviously.  However, the atmosphere for investment in Russia is horrible.  Look at the track record of interest in Russian bonds and currency futures.  They're horrible.  And it's not just because of sanctions, it's because Russia has made it very clear to the investment community that the government can not be trusted to obey the rule of law.  Investors, understandably, view this as a negative.

9 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Also one can dig into one's reserves, such as Russia has been draining its two main *SWFs for a while now. Which, while finite, are still considerable. Russia has a helluva lot of foreign reserves, enough for a small window of reducing the economic pain. Once those reserves run out (and if sanctions are still in place) I would suspect Putin to get quite violent, diplomacy speaking, towards the West. He's not about to come begging to anyone. This isn't Greece...

Yes, Russia has reserves.  But the official government position is to not touch those funds for ongoing, regular expenses.  This hasn't been exactly true for the last year or so, however it's been close.  If the government does decide to spend down its foreign currency reserves to stabilize and improve the Russian economy, that would be a fine use of those funds.  However, there is absolutely no indication that the Russian government has any such plans on the table.  Therefore, if it dips into its reserve funds it is doing so without addressing any of Russia's systemic economic problems that have put Russia in this precarious spot in the first place.

Even if oil bounces back to $100 a barrel things still don't look great.  Russia's economy was already showing signs of deep trouble before it invaded Ukraine and saw the Ruble tumble.  Those problems have in some ways gotten worse since then instead of better.

Steve

[Kinophile]

So how long would you give before things go full retard over there?

I don't think Putin needs Russia's economy to be all it can be (which is gigantic) but simply enough for him to keep a hold on things and spread some butter around. For Russia to properly thrive it needs an entirely different political system, which won't happen. Currently it's economy is just barely what he needs to stay in power. Russia has already been drawing down one of the two main funds, btw. But for bad reasons, ie as you say they're indirectly covering expenses but not investing internally (other than loans to prop up vital companies). Even then though, they still can go several years at the current rate. Oil is still low, but Oil is not static. It can go back down, of course, but its price has been slowly creeping up over the last year, despite sudden dips.

More accurately and applicable to CMBS, how long before Putin applies military pressure on the West (directly or on its allies/proxies)?

Edited June 28, 2016 by kinophile

[Lethaface]

If Russia is really gearing up for war they could decide to go all in and turn on the presses and inflate the Ruble to a point where they can do whatever they want internally while paying for aboslutely necessary imports with their oil exports (if even that is feasible). However: this will have significant implications for Russia on the global level. One thing I do know for certain is in that case there won't be a WC2018 in Russia. Not sure if Putin can survive that ;-P
Russia isn't the US that can basically finance (new) debt unlimited with newly created dollars.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Lethaface

[Eddy]

@slysniper

It depends on you what is meant by overspend.

If you mean the US economy's overspend, i.e. the US economy spending more than it earns (the current account deficit), the point when the overspend would be forced to stop would probably be if/when the dollar no longer held 'reserve currency status'. Reserve currency status is when a currency is held by foreign central banks as part of their reserves and is also the currency that most (about 80%) of international transactions are completed with. This increases demand for a currency, which keeps its price up. The Euro, Yen and Sterling (for now) make up most of the other 20%. Of course economies can turn around a current account deficit all on their own. 

If you mean US Govt deficit, which is what I think you meant, the overspend would be forced to stop when investors felt that they would no longer receive interest payments or possibly receive their principal back. As at present we are in  a risk averse part of the cycle, demand for Govt bonds is very high as they are seen a ultra safe, which is why they are so cheap and their yields so low. Of course a government can choose to spend less at any time.

So basically, the US will probably not have to pay the price any time soon, although it could choose to. It just has to keep up the mortgage payments.

[Battlefront.com]

Another point that gets lost in the economic discussion about Russia... existing debt.  The false image of Russia is a country that is debt free and has tons of reserves.  On paper that's true, but in reality it is an accounting slight of hand.  Almost all of Russia's primary sources of income are state controlled enterprises (in particular resource extraction).  Without them there is no Russian economy.  Those companies have borrowed heavily over the years and they require more borrowing to remain in business because most of them are not economically sound on their own (i.e. they are not competitive).  The money has to come from someplace. 

For the last dozen years in particular the source of funding has been non-Russian investors.  Russia has unwisely gone to war with investors, in a sense, and that in turn has scared them away.  The sanctions are only one component of this.  So where are these companies going to get their money from?  From the Russian government more so than the market place.  Since the Russian government can't pay it's regular expenses with its income, this means that it has to dip into reserves to keep these companies going or it will lose even more revenue, have higher unemployment, more strain on services, etc.

Along side of this is the decreased interest in foreign companies doing business within Russia.  Those companies provided jobs and output for Russians to purchase.  The Russian government didn't fund these activities, but instead profited from them.  Now that many of these companies have pulled out of Russia there is pressure on the Russian government to take care of the unemployed workers.  Here's an article about the Russian automotive industry (the poster child for contraction):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/05/10/russias-incredibly-shrinking-auto-industry/#64eb79d12f86

Steve

[ikalugin]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

While that is definitely a possibility (it was a significant factor in the last two major changes of Russian government), there's another possibility... a more balanced approach to spending.  That means the military has to give up on something so that the elderly don't starve.

Pension fund is separate from the budget.

The policy stays, security related spending has priority.

Still, we are going into OT. Are you interested in additional data on the Russian Armed Forces ongoing expansion?

[Lethaface]

4 minutes ago, Eddy said:

@slysniper

It depends on you what is meant by overspend.

If you mean the US economy's overspend, i.e. the US economy spending more than it earns (the current account deficit), the point when the overspend would be forced to stop would probably be if/when the dollar no longer held 'reserve currency status'. Reserve currency status is when a currency is held by foreign central banks as part of their reserves and is also the currency that most (about 80%) of international transactions are completed with. This increases demand for a currency, which keeps its price up. The Euro, Yen and Sterling (for now) make up most of the other 20%. Of course economies can turn around a current account deficit all on their own. 

If you mean US Govt deficit, which is what I think you meant, the overspend would be forced to stop when investors felt that they would no longer receive interest payments or possibly receive their principal back. As at present we are in  a risk averse part of the cycle, demand for Govt bonds is very high as they are seen a ultra safe, which is why they are so cheap and their yields so low. Of course a government can choose to spend less at any time.

So basically, the US will probably not have to pay the price any time soon, although it could choose to. It just has to keep up the mortgage payments.

With the benefit that it can basically create the finance for the mortgage payments with new debts as long as the world thinks they're good for it.

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, kinophile said:

So how long would you give before things go full retard over there?

No idea.  Russians are adverse to change, hostile even, right up until they hit some sort of breaking point.  This is unhealthy.  In other societies there is push for change before the breaking point and that allows countries the possibility of avoiding a major calamity.

I think Russia's ability to stay solvent enough to avoid internal collapse is measured in years, not decades.  The thing is that it's already running on empty and one or two wrong moves could be enough to tip it over the edge quickly.  Invading the Baltics, for example, would likely mean Russia going into collapse within a few months.  Which is why I keep arguing that he's got no intention of going into the Baltics.

Quote

I don't think Putin needs Russia's economy to be all it can be (which is gigantic) but simply enough for him to keep a hold on things and spread some butter around. For Russia to properly thrive it needs an entirely different political system, which won't happen.

Yup.

Quote

More accurately and applicable to CMBS, how long before Putin applies military pressure on the West (directly or on its allies/proxies)?

Er, it already is.  A lot more than anybody realizes.  For example, having FSB break into US diplomats' houses to rearrange furniture and (in one case) kill the family dog certainly isn't playing nice.  Threatening the children of US diplomats certainly isn't seen as a no-pressure tactic. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russia-is-harassing-us-diplomats-all-over-europe/2016/06/26/968d1a5a-3bdf-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

And then there's the lavish support Russia has given far right parties in Europe over many years.  The recent Russian government hacks into high profile US political organizations (DNC and Clinton's campaign) are aggressive moves.  Snowden is another one and that even predates Ukraine. 

These are precursors of more bad things to come.

Then there's Syria.  That's where we have direct military pressure being applied against US/Western interests even more so than Ukraine and the Baltics.

Steve