It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future of russia defense industry?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

While in reailty russia could only let her military budget grow at 6% but if they wanted to it could grow more but that puts pressure on a economy which has not had stable growth so for now and the future ahead i dont see russia explanding in any direction


He has no idea what he's talking about. Come on, just a little basic research for Christ sakes. But he sure is winded, and it's exactly how it usually is.




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
This is just utter bunk all Nasa projects dont fail. They have a success rates on really hard missions like Mars probes that make Russian attempts look like a joke.


The Russians tried to get there ahead of America and in the rush to get there in bad launch windows ( they spit the payloads and and so forth) they obviously made mistakes but still managed to add a dozen more 'firsts' to their list despite the high 'attrition' losses.

1971 - Mars 2. Spacecraft: Mars M-71 Partial, Reached mars with some good data ( for a few years )from orbiter with lander crashing

1971 May 28 - Mars 3. Spacecraft: Mars M-71 ,Partial, Reached Mars and even managed to get the lander on the ground and transmitting before failing

1973 July 21 - Mars 4. Spacecraft: Mars M-73 Partial , Took some pictures but did not enter orbit because of retro rocket malfunction

1973 July 25 - Mars 5. Spacecraft: Mars M-73, Partial, Reached Mars took some pictures and then had some kind of error

1973 August 5 - Mars 6. Spacecraft: Mars M-73, Partial , Reached mars and lander sent back data during descent before contact being lost just before landing.

transmitted data for 150 seconds, representing the first data returned from the atmosphere of Mars

1973 August 9 - Mars 7. Spacecraft: Mars M-73, Partial , Lander overshot planet by 1300 km because of chip malfunction. Orbiter active for 550 days.

www.svengrahn.pp.se... 18 missions.


Search for successful russian mars probes compared to attempts to the red planet LOL . 14 of Russia's 19 missions failed, and only one—Zond 3—can be considered a complete success; the remaining four are, at best, partial successes.


And there are pretty obvious reasons for those if you cared to check!


The only reason Russian rockets are being used to keep the ISS operating is because of the Shuttle saftey concerns that are not that major 2 accidents out of over 100 flights is really not a bad record.


How many Russian cosmonauts have died in accidents on their 'less safe' systems?
When was the last time seven Russians got them incinerated? I am sorry but packing lots of warm bodies into a unreliable massively- expensive -to-keep-them-'safe' system is not imo wise, efficient or sane.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

24 dead Americans versus 8 dead Russians tell me the Russians either lie very well or they are even less interested in throwing away good men. Since that is probably not the case ( they have a bad record) it's either lying or more reliable systems.


The Russians couldn't even complete the building of the ISS if they wanted too.


They are....


They dont have a single launch vehicle in their inventory that can get the ISS larger componets up to the ISS only the Shuttle has the cargo room to do it.


They do ...


NASA's just recently returned a sample of a comet to earth the first time in human history that has ever been done.


Which is a very pointless thing to be doing anyways and it shows what sort of crazy things the US has to do to get to be 'first' in space at something.


They still have two succesful mars probes still cruising around mars far longer then anyone thought they would last. That alone is better then the whole of Russia's mars missions.


Mostly sending back falsified data it seems.


But ask yourself what was the last major space mission Russia has done?? Horing out the ISS as a space motel to billionaires does not count.


In my book that is doing something worth talking about.


Stellar



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Good info StellarX.

We both know that there people that get things done, and people that get through the day to collect a paycheck. The ratio of the 1st to the 2nd determines the success rate of any given project.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
All of you guys are in love too much with your country that you wont accept the fact that you nation might not be as good as you say it is.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
You're right.

Hey, I live in the state of the great bear. No, it's not Russia, it's California, and damn is it hot today.

And as far as this goes;


We both know that there people that get things done, and people that get through the day to collect a paycheck.


People are people, it's all about how much talent they got, how important something is, and how those people are managed, regardless of what nationality they are.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
iskander,

Check your U2U.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I did, and that you for contacting me chinawhite.

I have replied and looking forward to discussing other topics with you.

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Russia has no immediate strategic threats, their current military is just fine for their needs.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The 4 SSNs for India are unconfirmed and they are likely never to be confirmed irrespective of the fact whether the deal is true or not.

The SSNs are reported to be the Akula II(Proj 971) Class SSNs. Maybe 4 maybe 2, maybe none(All indigenous?) .
Here's the article which brought it all into perspective late last year:


Bodrov commented further, asking “otherwise, why train some 300 Indian submariners in Russia? That constitutes 4 Akula crews.”

Nobody's going to train 300 sailors in SSN reactors for nothing.

I don't know about destroyers but India's just signed a deal for 3 brand new Krivak III(modified) stealth frigates.
Check the India vs. Pak Navies thread.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
Demographics = Destination.

Russia has a declining population (crashing really),


So did France, not so long ago.


a lousy climate,


Norway? Sweden? Canada? Poor countries, right?


poor living conditions,


Far, far better than most and that's after the disaster that was the late 90's.


a GDP smaller than Californian


And so does the absolutely vast majority of the worlds countries; Russia does however have a slightly larger GDP according to the CIA 'Fact book'.

en.wikipedia.org...


and a per capita GDP (much) smaller than West Virginia.


Personally i don't like GDP as a measure of how well people live but if you want to bring more precise PPP data i think you might be surprised by the results.


Sure Russia has lots of natural resources, but what good are they if there’s no one to make use of them or they’re just being shipped out as raw materials.


I would call what their doing 'using it'; ICBMs don't after all build themselves.


Hate America all you want,


I'm not sure how many here really actually HATES America so no reason to go there.


but it’s still the preferred destination for the smart and ambitious.


To get degrees before leaving for their home...


The only way they kept smart, ambitious people in the USSR was by building a wall around it.


There were no walls around the USSR and the Berlin wall were built to keep the CIA out and thus prevent all the industrial and economic sabotage their were indulging in.


The following compares the US to the EU, but it will give you some idea as to how the US compares to Russia.


Sure...


America will also be noticeably younger then and ethnically more varied.


America is getting 'younger' only in the sense that immigrants are streaming in and having kids... Why do you believe Russia could not relax their own immigration policies?


At the moment, its median age is roughly the same as Europe's (36 against 38). By 2050, according to Bill Frey of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, America's median age will still be around 36, but Europe's will have risen to 53 (and China's will be 44).


That's pretty much nonsense but since i am not going to wait for 2050 to say ' i told you so' i'll just leave that alone and comment on saner claims.


In the 1990s, America took in the largest number of immigrants it had ever seen in one decade: 33m people now living in the country were born outside it, and Latinos have become the largest ethnic group. “America,” says Hania Zlotnik of the United Nations Population Division, “is the world's great demographic outlier.”


America did not 'take them in' as the vast majority simply walked in without being noticed. To pretend that this is what Americans wanted or something that were 'controlled' by anything other than US state department inaction is to be misrepresenting the facts.


Then there is the technology gap.


Which gap?


Each year, more patents are applied for in America than in the European Union.


Do you think all those people actually come from the US or are planning to move there?


America has almost three times as many Nobel prize-winners than the next country (Britain),


As i remember Britain has more than half and if one compares the population sizes four or five countries has percentage wise taken in more Nobel prizes. That being said i think it's pretty stupid to judge countries this way considering just how biased the Nobel prize selection process is.


and spends more on research and development than any other country.


Spends, yes but in the main Japan and a few others implements the technologies quite faster. The US has long proven that it can not protect , in fact it gives it away, it's intellectual property and the more they spend the more advantage others are deriving from it.


On one measure of academic performance, over 90 of the world's top 100 universities are in America.


Talk about subjective claims... I can't imagine that countries like Japan, Israel, Norway, Sweden, can achieve such wealth without having establishments that rival or surpass American one's. In fact i have ever reason to suspect that American higher learning is based on the same type of facade as their supposed military might.

www.bus.lsu.edu...


Europe and America have also been diverging economically, though one should be cautious about that. In the seven years from 1995 to 2001, real GDP rose by 3.3% a year in America but by only 2.5% a year in the European Union.


Do you know what GDP entails? Do you realise that a oil spill or a earthquake contributes massively to GDP? Do you know how much the war in Iraq is contributing to the US GDP? Of all the measurements GDP is certainly one of the least useful indicators.


The bursting of the stockmarket bubble and the subsequent recession reversed this pattern—in 2001, GDP growth was higher in Europe than America—but the gap opened up again as the economies recovered.


Actually the war in Iraq started and the US then borrowed itself into this vast growing GDP. If you want to help your countries GDP grow i suggest you shoot yourself in one extremity or another and repeat it as often as possible. If that is not enough for you and you really want to make a difference burn down a plantation or crash your car through a store window so that large volumes of insurance funds can change hands. Finally , if your a real self sacrificing nationalistic fool, join the air force and somehow manage to get yourself killed in the skies over Iraq. The wonderful thing is that ALL money transfers contributes to GDP growth so getting yourself killed and a expensive plane blown up should by GDP logic get you the thanks of the nation; in fact president select junior Bush may be honest when he says that American soldiers are serving their country and that their sacrifices are 'worth it'.


On current estimates and forecasts, growth in America in the three years to 2004 will average 1.3 percentage points a year more than in the 12-country euro area. Some 60% of the world's economic growth since 1995 has come from America.


Some call it economic growth but economic devastation is far more accurate; the US national security state has in fact been responsible for roughly 60% of wars and ethnic violence so it's just a question of accepting that what they mean by growth is not what we understand it to be.


These relative economic gains may be reversed. It is hard to see how the country can sustain both its huge trade and budget deficits.


It can't.


On the other hand, its growth in the 1990s reflected a big improvement in productivity, which rose by over 2% a year in the 1990s.


Productivity for the factory owners, yes which were in large part achieved by laying off people or moving factories off-shore.


The number of hours worked also rose. In 1982, Europeans and Americans put in roughly the same number of hours each year. Now, Americans work a daunting 300 hours a year more.


And they have to work more just to ensure that their salaries do not decline even faster. American workers now work the longest hours in the industrialized west and they are not rewarded proportionally.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Returning to the topic >>>According to MOST authorities Russia is world"s biggest military exporter that surpassed the USA in 2006 ...some AUTHORITIES consider Russia to be the second largest military exporter.......but all accept the fact that Russian defense industry is growing....and it will continue to grow as long as technologically inferior markets like China , SouthEast Asia , latin America etc exsists ...so in near future Russia's defense industry has all to gain .....in the distant future no one knows what will happen to any Industry .....there may be a third world war.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Yes but Russia walks a fine line when it sells tactical and esp strategic weaponry to neighbouring countries like China.
The quantities in which these sales are made make one wonder what would happen if there was any future animosity developed between Russia and China.
Would Russia just throw a switch and render all chinese exported units useless?
BSG(Cylon n/w attack) comes to mind

I doubt that is the case.

So these sales are necessary to keep the money flowing into Russia but they are also at the cost of arming a potential foe, and thus even tipping the conventional balance in favour of that foe.
This situation isn't as pronounced anywhere else in the world as it is between Russia and China.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes but Russia walks a fine line when it sells tactical and esp strategic weaponry to neighbouring countries like China.
The quantities in which these sales are made make one wonder what would happen if there was any future animosity developed between Russia and China.
Would Russia just throw a switch and render all chinese exported units useless?
BSG(Cylon n/w attack) comes to mind

I doubt that is the case.

So these sales are necessary to keep the money flowing into Russia but they are also at the cost of arming a potential foe, and thus even tipping the conventional balance in favour of that foe.
This situation isn't as pronounced anywhere else in the world as it is between Russia and China.


From what I've read these weapons are designed NOT to shoot down Russian military planes, Satalites, and Radar Installations, I can't see why you a civilian think Russia wouldn't have thought about this.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I'm not saying they didn't think of it.
I'm sure they sell these weapons, especially to the Chinese, with the complete knowledge that those weapons can be used against themselves oneday.
I'm saying it is a calculated risk that they take and they trust to maintain the status quo regarding force balance by selling jsut enough to make a much required buck and just not enough to give the chinese a clear-cut conventional edge



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes but Russia walks a fine line when it sells tactical and esp strategic weaponry to neighbouring countries like China.


It might seem that way until one realises that Russia deploys 80-100 batteries of S-300 missiles that are all ABM capable; no country beside the US has enough strategic weaponry to ensure at least some penetration.


The quantities in which these sales are made make one wonder what would happen if there was any future animosity developed between Russia and China.


The Chinese strategic arsenal is not large enough to serve as a credible deterrent to the Russians and they could as easily lay waste to China as i believe the US could had it not had to contend with Russia. Since China and the USSR have been all but expressly allied since the late 70's ( The Chinese had no choice but they still got a better deal from the Russians than they did from the US) i do not see a world where China will act independent of Russian interest any time soon; if you wish you can see China as Russia's economic arm by which they intend control world affairs as the US has so far done for it's European bankers.


Would Russia just throw a switch and render all chinese exported units useless?


I don't really believe in those particular rumours.



BSG(Cylon n/w attack) comes to mind

I doubt that is the case.


So do i.



So these sales are necessary to keep the money flowing into Russia but they are also at the cost of arming a potential foe, and thus even tipping the conventional balance in favour of that foe.


I think the main reason for Russian exports is to keep their own military industrial complex active without arousing too much suspicion in the western public. People don't seem to think Russia has any money to buy their own arms so the export for 'profit' serves to distract those who are easily fooled.


This situation isn't as pronounced anywhere else in the world as it is between Russia and China.



China have not tried to do anything but build up a nuclear deterrence force and i do not see them soon employing it in any other way.

In closing i can't see what Russia can arm China with that will change the balance of power.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
It might seem that way until one realises that Russia deploys 80-100 batteries of S-300 missiles that are all ABM capable; no country beside the US has enough strategic weaponry to ensure at least some penetration.


Firstly, I would like to reiterate out that I am only referring to conventional force balances, like I said before.

Yes but do S-300s help against a Type-98 PLA Tank brigade? Notably the Type-98 have a lot of Russian inputs. Same goes for other ground based armory. Now I agree that Russia has a counter to that as well, but my point is this:

It is interesting if not surprising to observe the amount of weapons sales/expertise sales the Russians conduct vis-a-vis the Chinese after taking in to account the numerous conflicts this two countries have had in the not too distant past.
Most notably the Ussuri River clash, which I believe was the closest we have ever got to actual tactical nuclear usage(there may have been more hair-raising strategic incidents).






Since China and the USSR have been all but expressly allied since the late 70's ( The Chinese had no choice but they still got a better deal from the Russians than they did from the US) i do not see a world where China will act independent of Russian interest any time soon; if you wish you can see China as Russia's economic arm by which they intend control world affairs as the US has so far done for it's European bankers.


I do not see it that way.
Infact I see this as nothing more than a relationship of circumstance and convenience;again the chinese getting the better deal due to the economic upperhand.
I'm sure once China has enough technological independence(and conversely Russia enough economic independence), these two will start jockeying for regional dominance. It is a geographic inevitability IMHO.
Once the world assumes a more 'multipolar' configuration, this jockeying will become more evident as the US influence will not be a major issue anymore.

And as for China not acting independant of Russian interest; I strongly disagree as well. In the macroscopic sense it does seem that currently both share common interests, but that is all. It is not as if China submissively acts in concert with Russian interests. Its mutual.
On the microscopic scale, the conflict of interest between the two countries is all too evident. This ranges from stakes in Russian oil interests to Pacific naval posturing.





I think the main reason for Russian exports is to keep their own military industrial complex active without arousing too much suspicion in the western public. People don't seem to think Russia has any money to buy their own arms so the export for 'profit' serves to distract those who are easily fooled.


That is one of the possibilities I will concede.




China have not tried to do anything but build up a nuclear deterrence force and i do not see them soon employing it in any other way.


I feel the chinese conventional build-up + modernisation in the last two decades is staggering and alarming from any non-chinese perspective.



In closing I can't see what Russia can arm China with that will change the balance of power.
Stellar


I believe the numerous arms transfers that have occured across the armed forces are a testament to what I am trying to say.
Actually I think I will try to look for a document of some sort that catalogues all the physical arms transfers that occured between these two in the last two decades(the same period in which China experienced that massive military upgrade).
Any ideas on where I could get one? I have a feeling the transfers themselves would be sufficient to arm a country, a large one at that.
The knowledge transfers(with or without Soviet/Russian consent) are considerable as well.



[edit on 23-8-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Firstly, I would like to reiterate out that I am only referring to conventional force balances, like I said before.


If you wish but interestingly the USSR considered tactical and TBM's part of conventional warfare.


Yes but do S-300s help against a Type-98 PLA Tank brigade?


Sure it does! When Russian attack aircraft can with relative impunity, from Chinese fighter aircraft, batter away at Chinese armor concentrations that makes a big difference. When the Russians can fire TB's with chem/bio/nuke warheads against the same while shooting down Chinese TB's that also counts.


Notably the Type-98 have a lot of Russian inputs. Same goes for other ground based armory. Now I agree that Russia has a counter to that as well, but my point is this:


Sure it does but they have neither the numbers nor the experience of the Russian armed forces and i will go as far as to claim that no modern army beside the German and Russian have recently fought the type of war that you suggest might happen between Russia and China.


It is interesting if not surprising to observe the amount of weapons sales/expertise sales the Russians conduct vis-a-vis the Chinese after taking in to account the numerous conflicts this two countries have had in the not too distant past.


All before 1976 when the Russians demonstrated their power thus convincing the Chinese that further collusion with the American government would be a terrible mistake.


Most notably the Ussuri River clash, which I believe was the closest we have ever got to actual tactical nuclear usage(there may have been more hair-raising strategic incidents).


I am not sure where you got that idea from and as far as i know there were no serious consideration of escalation on either side. I do not see how China could have benefited from it and they were in my knowledge the side that tried to keep the Soviet Union at the discussion table.


I do not see it that way.
Infact I see this as nothing more than a relationship of circumstance and convenience;again the chinese getting the better deal due to the economic upperhand.


I think nations ally for reasons other than convenience and China is quite dependent on Russia for energy, fuels, armaments and raw materials. I don't see how you arrived at the conclusions that Russia needs China more than China needs Russia...


I'm sure once China has enough technological independence(and conversely Russia enough economic independence), these two will start jockeying for regional dominance.


Russia can annihilate China as a functional state tens times over and there is very little if anything China can do about this situation. Once again Russia is economically more independent than China is and China benefits hugely by Russian technological prowess. China can do without Russia in the economic and military sense but in geopolitics it needs Russia as ally.


It is a geographic inevitability IMHO.


Few things are and geography is unlikely to play a part. Russia and China has settled all their border disputes and if China ever moves anywhere in it will be against Taiwan or Japan.


Once the world assumes a more 'multipolar' configuration, this jockeying will become more evident as the US influence will not be a major issue anymore.


The US will remain a major player for a very long time as it still has 300 million people, a relatively highly skilled worker corps and a industrial base that can be rebuilt if the political will is sufficient. The world will become more multi polar but Russia and China will remain allied for a long time to come.


And as for China not acting independant of Russian interest; I strongly disagree as well. In the macroscopic sense it does seem that currently both share common interests, but that is all. It is not as if China submissively acts in concert with Russian interests. Its mutual.


It's not mutual and i have tried to find some evidence that it is; feel free to show me what led you to that conclusion.


On the microscopic scale, the conflict of interest between the two countries is all too evident.


Where? How?


This ranges from stakes in Russian oil interests to Pacific naval posturing.


The Russians can actually do something in the Pacific but the Chinese navy is going to need a decade or two before they can comfortably move against just Japan...

[quote[That is one of the possibilities I will concede.

You either agree or you don't! Don't make 'concession' and you really don't need a 'fact' to hold a certain opinion in this very friendly discussion.



I feel the chinese conventional build-up + modernisation in the last two decades is staggering and alarming from any non-chinese perspective.


Sure it is but China could never have achieved it's current economic power without help and i happen to believe that help came from Russia and it's strategic superiority over NATO. China's trade strength does not rest on fundamentals and it in my opinion/knowledge simply lacks the military and general strategic clout to force the US and others into such rapid economic decline.

[quote[I believe the numerous arms transfers that have occured across the armed forces are a testament to what I am trying to say.

I think that pretty clearly proves that Russia considers China a client state that poses no immediate danger just like the US sold Iran nearly 4 Squadrons of F-14 back in the day. Selling conventional weapons really does not change the balance of power with countries who operates several hundred ICBMs/SLBM's launchers that can in the case of Russia even be reloaded...


Actually I think I will try to look for a document of some sort that catalogues all the physical arms transfers that occured between these two in the last two decades(the same period in which China experienced that massive military upgrade).


I know that the Chinese military as very significantly upgraded it's capabilities but no amount of conventional firepower will enable China to absorb the thousands of nuclear warheads that will rain down on it during a protracted ( Russia is truly vast and currently operates superior conventional forces as well] multi year war with Russia.


Any ideason where I could get one? I have a feeling the transfers themselves would be sufficient to arm a country, a large one at that.
The knowledge transfers(with or without Soviet/Russian consent) are considerable as well.


You don't have to look as i have a good idea of the numbers and the resulting capabilities. Russia is so secure in it's strength that it has even sold China a good number of batteries of S-300; missiles that will enable China to possible shoot down a few dozen Russian ICBMs in case a war broke out. I could talk about the more secretive Russia operates but it seems that Russia has even enabled the Chinese to constructive direct energy weapons that can and will be employed over the straits of Taiwan...

I know what Russia is giving China and i have said that even thought Russia is operating from a position of strength the Chinese have every economic and strategic incentive, without additional threat of Russian violence, to do what is also in Russia's interest.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me what a TB is?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
For this i will sacrifice 20 point's maybe even 500 never under estimate the underdog.

Thank god that was more than one line.

Regard's
Lee



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Stellar,

I perceive that you are taking the discussion to a nuclear perspective. Russia may consider 'conventional' whatever it likes, but my pessimistic opinion of its use of such weapons remains.

IMHO everything is not ICBMs(I doubt Russia would need to use those against China anyways;IRBMs would suffice) and nukes and biochem warfare; even if we're talking about Russia.

as for battle readiness and training; I've learnt that such distinctions are only evident beforehand in microscpic spec ops like scenarios. I prefer to refrain from making such comparisions anymore.

For e.g: I genuinely feel from my personal experience, that Soviet flight combat tactics and engagement are quite lifeless and predictable. Infact I believe that the major losses faced by Russia supplied AFs in the MiddleEast have partly been due to blind application of Soviet flight combat tactics. Western(US,British and French) flight combat tactics IMHO are far more innovative and effective. I speak of this from a very local perspective as well.
Over the last few decades our CAW(and other institutions) have built a new flight combat doctrine after examining these 'shortcomings'.
This is pivotal I believe in the out-of-ordinary performance shown by IAF pilots using Russian jets against western flight combat tactics, as compared to the performance of Russian jets (in the hands of other 3rd party operators) against western tactics.
Now I don't know what regime the Chinese pilots train but my point is:
All this is again perspective in the end. Not worth talking about IMO.

As for the microscopic differences between chinese and russian policies:
Well I could list them, true, but I doubt that would get us anywhere. Lets just say that the best at actively observing these differences would be countries that have vested interests in this Sino-Russian 'partnership' ( And the US/west is not one of those countries
).

Secondly I do not believe that China is a client state of Russia. I'm not sure if you could prove it otherwise as well, but I'm willing to listen

I am certain that China does not view itself as the same.

As for the Ussuri River Conflict:
Well, the Soviets never let it get out-of-hand due to other global commitments such as czechslovakia and the initiation of SALT.
However the chinese offensive had a far-reaching ideological accusation on the Soviets:

The Soviet form of communism is inherently flawed and thus they are unfit to hold the leadership of this position.Our(Chinese) communism is supreme and we(chinese) consider ourselves to be the new bearers of this torch

Such an accusation coupled with knowledge of chinese human-waving warfare in the not so distant Korean War, made the soviets seriously consider the tactical nuclear option if the skirmish inflammed into a war.

This assurance was extended to the Indian allies during the fag-end of the 1971 Bangladesh war. The evident,synchronised and overt actions of the Kissingerated-US and China in support of Pakistan against India had forced the Soviets to :

  1. send a nuclear-capable naval fleet in order neutralise any misadventures by the 7th CSG
  2. Deploy forward positions at the chinese border to prevent the chinese from massing at the Indian border.


Both gestures were 'nuke-driven' in order to ensure that the conflict between India and Pakistan remained just that; one between India and Pakistan.


Anyways, Lets leave all this aside Stellar.
I have certain opinions about the Sino-chinese relationship and yes, they maybe driven from a lot of homegrown info; but tend to agree with this info for the most part. Explaining it might be difficult



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join