[RD] The Russia News Thread

[Yeekim]

"Misha 2 percent"

I see. Noone likes aggressive dumping, I guess...

 

[REDY]

Frankly, I am not a fan of Kadyrov. By any standards. But if I had to pick between these two guys... yeah, Kadyrov would seem to be relatively harmless, I guess.

This is just wow.

 

[Daw]

This is just "wow" what? At least Kadyrov is simple. It makes him somewhat manageable.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

This Kadyrov whoever he is seems a tough guy. Hard to kill.

 

[Daw]

I thought killing was bad

Anyway, Kadyrov (bizarre and even embarrassing as he may be) does at least one good thing: he keeps the part of the Caucasus he's in charge of calm. And runs it according to the national traditions there.

So, he's a governor keeping his region calm and respecting local traditions and culture by acting accordingly. What's wrong with that?

 

[Cutlass]

Population growth issues aside, I don't think the global slump in oil prices will continue indefinitely. When prices rise again, Russia is once again going to have a booming economy and that's even putting aside all of the other resources they have that the rest of the world covets.

It may not continue indefinitely, but it's probably going to be longer than the oil producers would like. But even when it does, that won't solve Russia's problems.

How Much Oil Output Halted Due to Low Prices? Just 0.1%

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-oil-output-halted-due-to-low-prices-just-0-1

Now Iranian oil is going back on the market, and other producers need to sell all that they can, despite the prices.

But that's a long ways from being Russia's only problem, or to help much when prices come back. They've only got one segment of their economy which is even occasionally doing well, and that's a highly volatile one. And when oil is doing well, Putin is wasting the money on the military and other things rather than invest to help the nation.

 

[Daw]

And when oil is doing well, Putin is wasting the money on the military and other things rather than invest to help the nation.

A few years ago I had a talk with a guy who understands economy stuff far better than I do.

And he said that placing money in the military may well be the backbone of the economy. The explanation involved that producing military stuff calls for high-tech R&D and industrial capacities, which bring up well-paid high-IQ jobs, and those require supporting stuff like infrastructural construction and pulls related civilian industries up.

And when you've produced a lot of military stuff you can as well sell it, thus returning a good share of what you put into it. All that combined was supposed to mean that money spent on military are far from being wasted but rather pretty well invested.

All that sounds quite smooth to me, but I am not an economist, so I guess I can't assess it as an expert would.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the US gets away with spending so much on the military on similar grounds but all the indications I have seen on the current Russian military build-up point to less emphasis on R&D investment and more investment on recapturing the glory days by building lots and lots of outdated equipment. IMO, that's wasteful but it seems to be the path they are on. They even slashed funding for Roskosmos pretty heavily which doesn't bode well for the military R&D argument given how interconnected space programs tend to be with the military.

 

[Daw]

So it seems. Although, I'm not a military guy, either, so i didn't pay too much attention... Some stuff they use in Syria look quite modern though... I don't know, honestly. And military R&D tends to be highly classified, too. So, it is unexpected to get known about until it's being produced and is ready to be used, right? So, there might be things I have no way of knowing about, even if I get really interested.

 

[Agent327]

Russia is pretty much a petro-economy though. And this hasn't changed since before the Putin era. Give that the current 10 % cutbacks don't pass over the military budget this military solution (if it has any merits) may not pay out.

Frankly, I am not a fan of Kadyrov. By any standards. But if I had to pick between these two guys... yeah, Kadyrov would seem to be relatively harmless, I guess.

Not really. I gather you did neither bother to read the article or know much about Mr Kadyrov. He's also googleable, you know.

 

[Cutlass]

A few years ago I had a talk with a guy who understands economy stuff far better than I do.

And he said that placing money in the military may well be the backbone of the economy. The explanation involved that producing military stuff calls for high-tech R&D and industrial capacities, which bring up well-paid high-IQ jobs, and those require supporting stuff like infrastructural construction and pulls related civilian industries up.

And when you've produced a lot of military stuff you can as well sell it, thus returning a good share of what you put into it. All that combined was supposed to mean that money spent on military are far from being wasted but rather pretty well invested.

All that sounds quite smooth to me, but I am not an economist, so I guess I can't assess it as an expert would.

Military spending in excess of security needs is a form of consumption spending. In effect, it's eaten, and gone. Russia has very little in the way of foreign security concerns. And so needs very little in the way of military spending. A good chunk of Russian military is national prestige, and foreign adventures. That's money just spent and gone.

Nations which buy Russian military hardware are those who are either forbidden to buy American or NATO, or who have shaky relationships with the West, and so like to keep their spending diversified. None of these places think that they are getting top of the line hardware from Russia. So Russian spending for their own tech doesn't help exports much.

I think the US gets away with spending so much on the military on similar grounds but all the indications I have seen on the current Russian military build-up point to less emphasis on R&D investment and more investment on recapturing the glory days by building lots and lots of outdated equipment. IMO, that's wasteful but it seems to be the path they are on. They even slashed funding for Roskosmos pretty heavily which doesn't bode well for the military R&D argument given how interconnected space programs tend to be with the military.

Yeah, they don't have high end stuff. They have solid stuff. But what they are doing is spending on stuff they really don't need. And at the expense of their economy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I thought killing was bad

Anyway, Kadyrov (bizarre and even embarrassing as he may be) does at least one good thing: he keeps the part of the Caucasus he's in charge of calm. And runs it according to the national traditions there.

So, he's a governor keeping his region calm and respecting local traditions and culture by acting accordingly. What's wrong with that?

I dont know that much about the guy indeed, just looked for him in wikipedia and found he must be, along Arafat and Fidel, among the guys who survived more murder attempts in history.

Anyway he looks like another warlord of the Caucasus, but i suppose that is as politicians usually are in that region.

 

[red_elk]

building lots and lots of outdated equipment.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/o...sian-military-modernization-us-response-pifer

Yeah, they don't have high end stuff.

United Launch Alliance wound up using Russia’s engines because they were more advanced and cheaper than what was available in the U.S., Michael Gass, chief executive officer of the joint venture, told senators during the subcommittee hearing on March 5. Those engines are employed in one of two rockets used for military satellite launches.

“We have kind of fallen behind in advanced technology,” Gass said. “When we went to Russia, there were things that they were doing,” he added, that “our textbooks said was impossible.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...b-at-rival-shows-u-s-space-reliance-on-russia

 

[REDY]

Military spending in excess of security needs is a form of consumption spending. In effect, it's eaten, and gone. Russia has very little in the way of foreign security concerns. And so needs very little in the way of military spending. A good chunk of Russian military is national prestige, and foreign adventures. That's money just spent and gone.

Nations which buy Russian military hardware are those who are either forbidden to buy American or NATO, or who have shaky relationships with the West, and so like to keep their spending diversified. None of these places think that they are getting top of the line hardware from Russia. So Russian spending for their own tech doesn't help exports much.

Russian military hardware is known to have top quality for reasonable price. Its one of things which Russians mastered so it would be unwise from them to abandon it completeley. Lot of countries do not buy Russsian military for same reasons as you stated but because Russian shaky relations with US. Energies and military are allways more political decision than economical. Plus military equipment compatibility among alliance members. But I agree that for country like Russia have big military is luxury.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think everybody in the space industry agree on russian rocket engines being a step ahead of anything else. This excelence is visible in the military field too, with russian ICBMs, antiship misilles and particullarly SAMs being top notch and in many cases with ranges, ceiling and speeds way ahead of western ones. West has yet to build something as the SA-21 system.

In other fields though i have the feeling they continue lacking respect western counterparts. For instance air warfare. Russian aircraft being awesome and all, the important thing today is information. Detect and not to be detected. With current weapons once you are detected you are mostly toast. (i know i know they thought the same in vietnam, but now it is true) And it is not all about stealth but the whole scenery awareness thing. Sensors, to say it in a word. So in case of a war in the air i would root for the rusky planes but would put all my money in the western equiped side.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/o...sian-military-modernization-us-response-pifer



United Launch Alliance wound up using Russia’s engines because they were more advanced and cheaper than what was available in the U.S., Michael Gass, chief executive officer of the joint venture, told senators during the subcommittee hearing on March 5. Those engines are employed in one of two rockets used for military satellite launches.

“We have kind of fallen behind in advanced technology,” Gass said. “When we went to Russia, there were things that they were doing,” he added, that “our textbooks said was impossible.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...b-at-rival-shows-u-s-space-reliance-on-russia

I think everybody in the space industry agree on russian rocket engines being a step ahead of anything else. This excelence is visible in the military field too, with russian ICBMs, antiship misilles and particullarly SAMs being top notch and in many cases with ranges, ceiling and speeds way ahead of western ones. West has yet to build something as the SA-21 system.

In other fields though i have the feeling they continue lacking respect western counterparts. For instance air warfare. Russian aircraft being awesome and all, the important thing today is information. Detect and not to be detected. With current weapons once you are detected you are mostly toast. (i know i know they thought the same in vietnam, but now it is true) And it is not all about stealth but the whole scenery awareness thing. Sensors, to say it in a word. So in case of a war in the air i would root for the rusky planes but would put all my money in the western equiped side.

Re: Space & Airplane Stuff

This is a whole other argument and I would love to have it with you all. Want to take it to the Space Cadet thread to avoid derailing this one? There actually has been a lot of news articles about Russian engines but all the ones I read are from the American perspective so I don't think they would count for the purposes of this RD Thread. We can also talk about aircraft there as it falls under the OP of that thread. I'm trying not to space-spam every thread I'm in.

 

[Phrossack]

I think the US gets away with spending so much on the military on similar grounds but all the indications I have seen on the current Russian military build-up point to less emphasis on R&D investment and more investment on recapturing the glory days by building lots and lots of outdated equipment. IMO, that's wasteful but it seems to be the path they are on. They even slashed funding for Roskosmos pretty heavily which doesn't bode well for the military R&D argument given how interconnected space programs tend to be with the military.

I wouldn't call Russian equipment outdated. Their SAMs are the best in the world, the new T-14 tank looks pretty state-of-the-art, their planes are generally excellent, and they're hoping to introduce the AK-12 to service (though assault rifle design matters very, very little in the grand scheme of things).

I can't speak to the much more important factors of training, command, intel, and logistics, and Russia certainly has huge stockpiles of outdated equipment, but their new stuff is no joke.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Let's take the conversation here.

And in the context of high-tech military gear and aerospace stuff (SAMs and aircraft), I would also allow us to talk about high-tech guns and tanks there too for as long as this conversation tangent lasts.

 

[FriendlyFire]

2nd largest exporter of weapons behind the US, and like the US Russia never sells its best weapons its export versions are all inferior to the latest versions this is done for security reasons of course. generally this second rate equipment is inferior to all the latest western stuff.

The old export tanks never stood a chance against first world weapons which were a generation ahead. Guess for smaller countries without there own military industries it gave them all a roughly equal footing and Russian hardware was cheap. The US also been moving in on Russian markets lately, giving old stuff to Vietnam for example.

 

[FriendlyFire]

...........

Question: What's the difference between Russian tragedy and Russian comedy?
Answer: In Russian comedy everyone dies happy while in Russian tragedy everyone just dies

Russia doubled it military spending, at a time it cannot afford, the real problem seems to be its economic stagnation due to exodus of its best people for the west and low oil prices

Putin’s self-destructing economy

A little more than a year after “Black Tuesday,” when the ruble lost a quarter of its value in a day, the state of the Russian economy is still uncertain. During the past 12 months, gross domestic product declined 3.9 percent, less than many analysts anticipated a year ago, and the government managed to get inflation below 13 percent.

Both the international financial institutions and Russia’s economic ministry now agree that the economy will not grow in 2016; the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank projected a 0.6 percent decline in December, while last week Russian authorities said they expected a 0.8 percent contraction

I would argue that Russia’s economy is doing much worse than it was even in 2009. Real disposable incomes are down significantly, and nominal wages — recalculated in dollars at current exchange rates — are below where they were in 2005.

Between 2008 and 2015, average annual growth has been close to zero; capital flight has accelerated; foreign investors have been sidelined; the business climate has deteriorated; and dozens of taxes have been newly introduced or increased. Military expenditures doubled

terminated their Russian businesses; around 30 production facilities owned by foreigners have been closed. Net emigration from Russia rose from 35,000 people a year from 2008 to 2010 to more than 400,000, by preliminary estimates, in 2015. I do not see any signs that all these trends might change.

The main reason for this is that in the 1990s and early 2000s, Russia — however chaotic it might have seemed — was a country of hope, and investors were attracted to dynamic and improving domestic conditions. That changed after 2012. Now it is a territory of disillusionment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...03598e-bb97-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html