Cold War, The Reimagined Series

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Putin isnt a pro western liberal, he is just pro Putin, and that I keep saying it ad Nauseum doesnt make it any less true.

Politician is self-serving? What a surprise!

[Roman Alymov]

https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/what-is-russias-logic-for-the-current-crisis/

WHAT IS RUSSIA’S LOGIC FOR THE CURRENT CRISIS?
MAXIM A. SUCHKOVJANUARY 7, 2022

Maxim A. Suchkov is acting director of the Institute for International Studies at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University).

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

They are mostly “liberals” because they mostly pretend to be pro-“free market”  (we have to keep in mind that for them “free market” means “free access of Western business to Russian market and resources”, while protecting interests of Russian business both domestically and on global market is not something they worry about, at least if it is not their personal business). They also pretend to be supporters of “freedoms”, because this “freedoms” are giving them ability to live luxury lifestyle inaccessible for majority of Russian population ...

I said yes, we're talking past each other.

What we mean by that: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy." Source

or so:

Либерализм — стремление к свободе человеческого духа от стеснений, налагаемых религией, традицией, государством и т. д., и к общественным реформам, имеющим целью свободу личности и обществ. Source

[Roman Alymov]

24 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

I said yes, we're talking past each other.

What we mean by that: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy." Source

or so:

Либерализм — стремление к свободе человеческого духа от стеснений, налагаемых религией, традицией, государством и т. д., и к общественным реформам, имеющим целью свободу личности и обществ. Source

I’m sorry but I am cynical Russian and i am not buying this ideological stuff since I do not believe in politicians(self-serving people who spent their entire life to get hold of power) to care about “individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy”. If you do – well, it is up to you. Tell President Trump, who was banned from his social networks accounts, about “freedom of speech”, or tell his opponents about “democracy”……
A network of plotters “held a dagger at the throat of American democracy,” and “right now, in state after state, new laws are being written not to protect the vote but to deny it. Not only to suppress the vote but to subvert it.” Biden declared, “As we stand here today, one year since January 6, 2021, the lies that drove the anger and madness we saw in this place, they have not abated. So we have to be firm, resolute and unyielding in our defense of the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”
What I see is a bunch of politicians, deeply integrated with business circles, struggle for power, with any means used.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Roman Alymov

[Stefan Kotsch]

Roman, these are ideals. What most people strive for. But, unfortunately, ideals are not the full reality.
But if you don't believe in anything out of cynicism, you've already lost. And the Kremlin is not leading in the direction of the ideals, but away from them.

Do that with you as you want, but leave your neighbors in peace.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

I’m sorry but I am cynical Russian and i am not buying this ideological stuff since I do not believe in politicians(self-serving people who spent their entire life to get hold of power) to care about “individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy”. If you do – well, it is up to you. Tell President Trump, who was banned from his social networks accounts, about “freedom of speech”, or tell his opponents about “democracy”……
A network of plotters “held a dagger at the throat of American democracy,” and “right now, in state after state, new laws are being written not to protect the vote but to deny it. Not only to suppress the vote but to subvert it.” Biden declared, “As we stand here today, one year since January 6, 2021, the lies that drove the anger and madness we saw in this place, they have not abated. So we have to be firm, resolute and unyielding in our defense of the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”
What I see is a bunch of politicians, deeply integrated with business circles, struggle for power, with any means used.

Trump was banned by a media service provider, a private one. He was not, and never could be, banned by the Government from expressing his views.  That is of course viable in nations that either have a fully nationalised media, or one where the Government feels freely able to wade in and make the rules up as suits them.

Basically, you are blaming politicians for removing rights, when the only rights being removed are by people whom are politicians.

Trump wasnt banned for freedom of speech or Democracy. He was banned because he encourged several thousand yahoos to turn up at Capitol hill and try and shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk. You can argue about whether thats fair or not, but that internet media providers didnt want to be seen endorsing it is perhaps entirely understandable.

[Roman Alymov]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Trump wasnt banned for freedom of speech or Democracy. He was banned because he encourged several thousand yahoos to turn up at Capitol hill and try and shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk. You can argue about whether thats fair or not, but that internet media providers didnt want to be seen endorsing it is perhaps entirely understandable.

You mean yahoos from Jonathan Swift book?

Well, it is up to you how you see President Trump supporters (de-facto good half of US voters). But if President Trump is really guilty of wrongdoings you accuse him of – why he is not in jail for actions that caused  people killed, but is only banned from social network (regular punishment for fault language or wrong picture)? Or if he is not guilty, why he is banned?  

Edited January 10, 2022 by Roman Alymov

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think a guy wearing Camp Auschwitz sweatshirts could be charitably classed as a Yahoo in anyone's book.

No, not everyone there broke into the Capitol building. But they weren't the problem.

[JWB]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

But if President Trump is really guilty of wrongdoings you accuse him of – why he is not in jail for actions that caused  people killed, but is only banned from social network (regular punishment for fault language or wrong picture)? Or if he is not guilty, why he is banned?  

Complicated question. Twitter is not the same as government. Twitter has its own standards as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. Breaking the laws of twitter will never be the same as breaking laws set out by government. To jail Trump would require government to prove Trump violated Incitement of Riot act. That law has very strict definitions and high thresholds as to what "incitement" means:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

[Josh]

The US has a high threshold for criminal prosecution in general, and one could argue for high ranking officials in particular. To quote the US Senate Majority leader: "Trump is practically and morally responsible" for the Jan 6th riot. But that is actually a different thing from being accused, let alone convicted, of being criminally liable. Trying to prove someone is criminally negligent in a situation that didn't involve their direct actions is exceedingly difficult, though I think there have been several cases of it occurring - for instance a college student who was pleaded to negligent manslaughter for pushing a fellow student to suicide. But generally the burden of proof is too high in the US criminal system to establish that there was intent or negligence in such cases. Trump could also be sued in civil court (I think there are several pending), which has a much lower threshold in terms of finding a party liable, in which case he might have to pay out financial damages to aggrieved parties if a jury finds him liable.

None of this has anything to do with free speech - as noted, the government doesn't guarantee you get to be on TV or the internet, it just has no right to restrict you from doing so if you are able. If no one wants to host you on their network or website, that is also *their* freedom of speech. If you want to make a huge sign with your views on it and walk down Penn Avenue in DC or you are someone like Trump and you can afford your own websites and TV stations if you wanted to, the government can't shut them down. But the people at Twitter or Facebook are under no obligation to host you either (so long as their reasons for doing so are not due to sex, orientation, race, or religious beliefs).

Edited January 10, 2022 by Josh

[Rick]

22 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not “Western” but “pro-Western liberals”. This people are “pro-Western” because all their plans for future are linked to West, not with Russia – their assets are in the West (both in terms of money in Western banks/offshores and material assets like houses, flats, yachts etc), their children and grandchildren live there, are married to Westerners etc. About many of them there are strong suspicion that nature of their business deals and political activities in 1990^th might be compromising in eyes of Russian publics – and we may be sure that records about this dark pages of their past are stored by Western institutions for future use.  “pro-Western”  does not mean they are somehow strongly attached to so called “Western values”  (I am not sure even real Western politicians are)   -but that their ability to do something against Western interests is strongly limited, even if Russian interests require this actions.

I ask the following due to my lack of knowledge.

Why do these Russian individuals and families believe they are, apparently, financially and politically better off in the West? Is a distinction drawn between the U.S. and Europe when "West" is mentioned?

They are mostly “liberals” because they mostly pretend to be pro-“free market”  (we have to keep in mind that for them “free market” means “free access of Western business to Russian market and resources”, while protecting interests of Russian business both domestically and on global market is not something they worry about, at least if it is not their personal business).

I'm thinking out loud while typing, but it appears these "Western Russians" are acting as a middleman between Russian resources and Western markets? Forgive me for my ignorance of foreign affairs, but what Russian resources are going to what Western businesses then to Western customers? 

Pardon me while I make an assumption that the Russian "middlemen" where, maybe still are, higher up government officials?

Thank you Roman for your time in explaining things from a point of view not often -- from what I can tell -- mentioned in the rare times I look at the news.  

They also pretend to be supporters of “freedoms”, because this “freedoms” are giving them ability to live luxury lifestyle inaccessible for majority of Russian population (“Where you got this watches that cost  XXX XXX usd?” – “It is the gift from my wife. We live in free country, do not try to impose this outdated Soviet morale on me”)

 

 

[Roman Alymov]

RUS taxpayers money at work: first flight of first Tu-160 built in Russia from scratch, not from Soviet airffame

 

[seahawk]

Beautiful bird.

[TrustMe]

It is impressive but the Tu160 R&D almost bankrupted the Soviet aircraft industry in the 1970's and 1980's. It's one of the reasons why the USSR fell apart.

It's a maintenance nightmare.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'll look forward to seeing it retrofitted with stealth.

[Josh]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'll look forward to seeing it retrofitted with stealth.

I don't see any reason to do that when there is an entire other bomber to fill that role. The B-1 had its high altitude performance greatly reduced to lower its RCS a relatively small amount. Modern AESA radars being what they are, the high top speed of Tu-160 is probably better to retain then any marginal signature reductions.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I don't think anyone seriously believes the new Tupolev Stealth bomber is going to enter service. There is no one to develop it with, and it's going to cost an arm and a leg to build and maintain.

If there was any smarts in their military procurement, they would be restarting Tu22M3 production. It was far more adaptable.

Beautiful aircraft indeed, but so was the XB70. Sometimes it's right to let these things go.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I don't think anyone seriously believes the new Tupolev Stealth bomber is going to enter service. There is no one to develop it with, and it's going to cost an arm and a leg to build and maintain.

If there was any smarts in their military procurement, they would be restarting Tu22M3 production. It was far more adaptable.

Beautiful aircraft indeed, but so was the XB70. Sometimes it's right to let these things go.

I think they will end up building PAK-DA, I just don't think it enter service any time soon and that production rates will be low. The Russians are having to recapitalize a lot of infrastructure to build these projects, but they have the will and sufficient money to continue forward. I think the PAK-DA will suffer the same issue as the Su-57 though: it will spend its service life being outnumbered 10:1 by its US equivalents.

[glenn239]

Next gen Russian strategic stealth bombers might be another area where they just buy Chinese instead.

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 hours ago, Josh said:

I think they will end up building PAK-DA, I just don't think it enter service any time soon and that production rates will be low. The Russians are having to recapitalize a lot of infrastructure to build these projects, but they have the will and sufficient money to continue forward. I think the PAK-DA will suffer the same issue as the Su-57 though: it will spend its service life being outnumbered 10:1 by its US equivalents.

The will is Vladimir Putin, whom probably doesnt have the 20 year Political lifespan its going to take to get this into production. Also, it seems likely to me that if it comes to a choice between recapitalising the Army with Armata, and indulging in a stealth bomber which covers a defence angle they already have covered with the new series of Ballistic Missiles.

As for money, the Russian Defence budget has yet to touch the high it had in 2016. It seems unlikely to me it will again, unless the Israelis nuke the Persian Gulf.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions

 

[Josh]

14 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Next gen Russian strategic stealth bombers might be another area where they just buy Chinese instead.

The Chinese would never sell and the Russians would never buy. You seem to ignore the pattern of behavior of Russia that is clearly intended to make the country absolutely self sufficient economically and militarily, while also ignoring the fact that China's aircraft exports are exceedingly limited.

[Josh]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The will is Vladimir Putin, whom probably doesnt have the 20 year Political lifespan its going to take to get this into production. Also, it seems likely to me that if it comes to a choice between recapitalising the Army with Armata, and indulging in a stealth bomber which covers a defence angle they already have covered with the new series of Ballistic Missiles.

As for money, the Russian Defence budget has yet to touch the high it had in 2016. It seems unlikely to me it will again, unless the Israelis nuke the Persian Gulf.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions

 

We'll agree to disagree. The Russians seem intent on maintaining rough parity with the US at most any cost and I believe they have the technology and will to make a PAK-DA happen. I think we'll see a PAK-DA fly inside several years and small numbers enter service by the end of the decade. One could argue that the Russians are really trying to punch above their weight* with all of these projects and that the country would be better served by just integrating with Europe and getting along with the EU, but that clearly isn't where the politics are right now.

*Trying to keep up with the US strategically with a GDP of New York City

[bd1]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

The Chinese would never sell and the Russians would never buy. You seem to ignore the pattern of behavior of Russia that is clearly intended to make the country absolutely self sufficient economically and militarily, while also ignoring the fact that China's aircraft exports are exceedingly limited.

try to run this article/post through google translate, how russians inside the industry view the overall state of things. they probably will muddle through with something, but would it be affordable or in quantity, is another thing

https://habr.com/ru/post/599671/?fbclid=IwAR2x1YCk2aZkYY9pjQM__lZ4WMRNmaHCTExrh6wkhxhQfwPNz5ALHXUVM-w

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, bd1 said:

try to run this article/post through google translate, how russians inside the industry view the overall state of things. they probably will muddle through with something, but would it be affordable or in quantity, is another thing

That's the issue.  The Russians are hitting the wall on their military aviation industry.  They can't be in the first league everywhere.  Either they go the Swedish route of small numbers and long development times, or they start buying Chinese to allow their industry to specialize in fewer sectors.