The issue of reform of the military has been a central topic of discussion for the past couple of years. Putin says he wants a smaller, more streamlined and professional army of contract soldiers designed for coping with regional threats like Chechnya. The top brass, on the other hand, who were trained during the Cold War and usually view the US as their No. 1 enemy, want a massive military where they can win by simply being willing to take more casualties than the other side. There's a lot of conflict between the Kremlin and the military on this issue.
It's pretty clear that Putin's plan for revitalizing Russia and making it into a great power again -- and make no mistake about it, this certainly seems to be his goal -- mainly involves increasing its economic strength and ability to influence others economically, not militarily. He appears to be trying to get the West hooked on Russian oil.
That said, the Russian army is equipped with (poorly maintained) Soviet weaponry, which is nothing to sneeze at. My impression is that Western commentators tend to exaggerate the decrepitude of Russian technology, like they do with so many other things about Russia. A lot was made of the sinking of the Kursk, but the fact remains that the class of subs to which it belongs is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. Hell, Mir, which was so pooh-poohed in its final years by Western media, was only supposed to be in orbit for two years, and instead stayed up there for 15.
Come to think of it, a single nuke-equipped Russian sub could wipe out the entire Eastern Seaboard.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal ----------------------
Alexandre said:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:03:49 -0300 From: "Alexandre Fenelon" <afenelon at zaz.com.br> Subject: RES: Russian take on Bush's State of the Union blather
- -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de Chris Doss Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de fevereiro de 2002 03:21 Para: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' Assunto: RE: Russian take on Bush's State of the Union blather
Assymetrical response. It costs a lot less to slap multiple warheads on your nukes than it does to build high-falutin' and probably non-functional Star Wars systems.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal - ------------------
- -But nuclear weapons are good to threaten your enemy with destruction (ie., - -assure you a stalemate in a total war). But they doesn?t help too much - -as instrument of power projection, which is much more important when - -two superpowers compete for global domination. Here a sizeable economy - -and conventional weapons are of utmost importance.
Alexandre Fenelon