Russia’s military spending has been declining in recent years, and is expected to shrink even more in the next few years. Despite this, the US seems to have no problem using Russia as an excuse to keep justifying more military spending. The latest move, from the US Navy, is to form an entire new naval fleet.
The US Second Fleet was dismantled in 2011, both to save money and because there is realistically no need for them. This fleet, which is responsible for the US East Coast and the northern Atlantic, is making a comeback, with Navy officials claiming a “great power competition” against Russia.
Even a cursory examination shows this is nonsense. Russia’s Navy is much older and far smaller than America’s. Moreover, Russia doesn’t have a fleet in the Atlantic in the first place. The closest thing to such a fleet would be Russia’s Northern Fleet, in the Barents Sea, which is focused on the Arctic.
There is no purpose to forming a new fleet on the American East Coast, to counter Russia or anyone else. Yet there appears to be no public debate against doing so. The US Navy knows that Russia can be used to justify anything, and with President Trump promising to build more warships, a new fleet fits nicely into the plan to continue the surge in US military spending.
Russia does not need a fleet. The new supersonic high tech weaponry developed by Russia make war ships and especially aircraft carriers sitting dugs. In contrast to the US gunboat diplomacy, Russia has no overseas bases or interests in plundering the resources of other countries.
” In contrast to the US gunboat diplomacy, Russia has no overseas bases”
The governments of Syria and Vietnam would be surprised to learn that. Here they’ve thought for all these years that the Russians have bases in Tartus, Latakia, and Cam Ranh Bay.
US has some 800 bases all over the world surrounding Russia and China. That proves US foreign policy is an aggressive one. The few Russian basis in Syria are on invitation of the Syrian Givernment in response to American/Saudi Arabian backed terrorist ISIS aggression. It has assisted Syria to regain its independence. Quite different scenario.
I’m not sure where you think we disagree.
Your claim was that Russia has no overseas bases.
That claim is incorrect.
$…
Cuba, Vietnam survived while in possession of some big and small paddle boats.
Russia does no need even a big army let alone warships. Nukes and ability to land them anywhere on Earth suffices.
Sounds like a good idea better to have more than to have less of a capability in the theatre of war. This will help but,in the meantime the continuing evolvement of the hypersonic missile system that’s been in development for sometime is the real peace maker. Russia claims to have this technology but, than again history has taught us Americans to be skeptical when dealing with them. I pray for those Russians that where detained this weekend for voicing their concerns and wanting a Russia free of Putin. In the meantime America is on a roll with its massive build up of all it’s military branches and the deadliest nuclear arsenal that’s ever been built and all thanks to Russia and Putin for helping Trump get elected. Thanks again Putin we couldn’t have done it without you, keep exposing the nukes you claim to have developed and keep pushing your boundaries ,all it’s doing is allowing our military to keep pushing ours, keep up the good work.
Russia seems to be confident enough in their new ICBMs . As Putin has cut Russian military spending about 20 % That means Russia spends about 40 billion and Trump figures he has to increase our debts and spend 650 billion to feel safe . I don’t Know what Russia debt is but ours is some where over 20 trillion . The United States now has Russia about surrounded with NATO and Nazi forces but Russia doesn’t act like they are very afraid .
This is all about the economy. This keeps the whole financial structure up. Trump has come too late to do something about the economy, to reverse decades of gutting our industries, our scientific and technological depth. Now, as he is trying to keep the advantage in one and only technology we have — chipmaking— he is stepping into mobile OS war. The net result will be faster market availability of Chinese own product, making sure that we lose this big market. In essence, in the name of having access to this bug market, US corporations gave away the store. But choking off the access to Chinese market before we rejuvenate our economy and develop new markets, will hurt US and/or its allies. Just as it happened in curttig off Russia’s aluminum.
Russia as a country has practically no foreign debt. Following 2008 financial crisis, Russia’s corporations are also very conservative in fireign debt, but if any needs rescuing, State (taxpayer) just gets shares.
Russia can reduce military spending as much of R&D spent in the previous period is now in production, that is, financed by major arms producing companies. They are part or all State owned, but they have their own budgets, sales plans. They make profit, but goid chunk of the profit dies not go into givernment treasury, but is kept for their expansion, and production of new classes of weapons.
In reality, Russia owns a great deal of military corporate shares. But these corporations have incentive to be efficient and profitable, as they have their iwn disposable capital to expand, or pay talent.
Another aspect of Russian military spending is a giant unknown. And that is the openly declared intention by Russia and China to not duplicate efforts, and work collaboratively to take advantage of complimentary advantages. When announced, back in 2014, only few analysts raised flags. I suspect that at the time it was believed that US has such a huge advantage, and that it would take decades for Russia and China to catch up. Additionally, it was believed that such collaboration was not going to suceed due to the perceived mistrust on issues such as Central Asia, etc. Much of the rosy outlook for US advantage was based on Russian antiquated state of fleet and submarines. But it was deceptive. While maintaining and upgrading whatever it could, Russia had embarked on what they call asymmetrical modernization. As it turned out — they put all the research and development into essentially five categories. First and open — missile and aircraft defence. This is a competitive advantage in the short term. But the real asymmetrical development it turned out is hypersonic Mach 10 Dagger short range cruise missile already deployed in its Southern District (read, Syria, Iran), ballistic missile with MIRV reentry vehicles, Mach 20, in near plasma state but with new alloys, still remote controlled. Another capability, nuclear posered cruise missile with the hnlimited range, and duration of flight. But what got my attention is the nuclearly powered submarine drone, armed with cruise missiles, that has superior speed and ability to hide in extreme depths. Again, the duration of deployment is practically limitless. The reason why this class if weapons got my attention is the advantage US has in submarines with short-range cruise missiles. Submarine is an asset that can be brought very close to the target, making it difficult to defend, and making it difficult to know where exactly they are. Trump boasted that he can destroy North Korea by submarines alone. Hence, the unmanned submarine drone — that is quiet, can hide in various lications and depths, and also can destroy surface vessels and facilities along shores, such as ports, bases and fortifications, utilities and bridges. This one is a game changer — others in limited cinflict, or all out conflict. Russia has not invested in big fleets, except icebreakers. It makes sense.
The reason I think that this drone is probably the most imminent objective by both Russia and China. And I would not be shocked if Chinese factories are turning out these by the thousands, especially as they can be transported easily using standard cargo containers. The nuclear reactor is, according to Russia, miniaturized to 1/100 of standard submarine reactor. I would not be suprised if many of them are not already deployed to shadiw US and other submarines. This is a question of production, and I am not surprised that only one supersonic weapon is being shown as existing. As for orhers, ut would nit make sense to reveal the status of a weapon that is dealing with your greatest vulnerability.
The analysts that were cheering themselves with a thought that Russia and China would not cooperate — are forgetting the trauma of WWII and what it meant for both of them. Adventures comjng from the West cost them dearly, many times in history. Their motivation is stronger. And the level if trust with the West is at the all time low.
I’ve heard the Navy is losing seamen by offering early partial pensions. I smell a draft coming.