Russia to sell 29 air defense systems to Iran

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a powerful Russian Navy. Of course I don’t think pouring money on the problem is the solution, and I don’t think spending a lot of money on defence is going to help Russia. Obviously there needs to be a balance. Clear roles for the military need to be defined, and sensible upgrade and replacement programs need to be put in place to allow the military to perform its role, all without costing too much.

HURRAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RSM-55 Is BACK!!!!

Welcome home boy we miss you :), now go back to Russian Navy Section 🙂

Of course they can if they want. It is their port facilities that they are leasing to the Russians.

Mighty my A$$. Their main role is a support role for their boomers and they are barely a credible force to do even that. They have no world wide shipping lanes to protect, they have no empire that needs command of the seas to maintain.
Of course I would think the revenue generated from the lease that actually makes them money is as much for their benefit as for Russia’s.

Perhaps global warming will solve their problem soon enough. 🙂

Dear GarryB, just a few facts for you to ponder:
– the main role of the RN isn’t only to keep the water clear for boomers, they have internal waters for that (just look at a map, ever heard of the Okhotsk Sea?). Just in case you forgot, Russia has one of the largest maritime borders in the world (if not the largest) and the North Maritime Lane is becoming more and more a strategic asset to protect. The Baltic needs protection too, and with China fast emerging, the Pacific will not lose its importance. Don’t forget the Black Sea and the Straits, they’re vital for the RF.
As for the Black Sea Fleet case, Ukraine is bound to lease Sevastopol till 2017 by common inter-governmental accord. The problem for Ukraine is that this very document also aknowledges current Ukrainian borders. If they decide to withdraw from this comprehensive treaty unilaterally, Russia will immediately claim the Crimean peninsula back (and they even might have a lawful argument to do so, as it was retroceded by Khrutschev in more than strange and unconstitutional circumstances).
PS and nota bene: the number of operational order-of-battle vessels in the Ukrainian Navy is 2 (two).

becoming ever important and in the future, due to global warming, this will only increase.

I wish them the best, but they have never been and never need to be the naval nations that the UK used to be or the US is.

Even General Leonid Ivashov says Official 9/11 Story is a lie, the same with the “Official Story that Iran is trying trying to build Nuclear bombs: http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html

Funny thing, the Russians have a port in Novorosiysk too. And that one is on the same line as Sevastopol, doesn’t freeze either. Add to it that the Black Sea Fleet is about the smallest (except for the Caspian Flotilla) of the Russian fleets and hence would barely matter to them. (that one Kilo can still deploy then). Northern fleet has a bunch of ice breakers if necessary.

Garry, their shipping is increasing too, the Baltic Sea Lane is becoming quite important for them, this is also the reason why the Baltic Fleet is receiving so much attention for now. Lots of ships are heading for St-Petersburg nowadays.
Murmansk is also becoming ever important and in the future, due to global warming, this will only increase.

So, if Ukraine decided that Russian administration is no longer friendly and decided to revoke the lease of the Crimean port, it too will be just politics.

If Ukraine did revoke the lease, the Russian navy would not have a fully functioning port during those cold Russian winters. That would be the most hilarious sight: seeing the mighty Russian navy all iced up for four months of the year. 😉

actually this is much wider conflict than u think. both Russia and China is signing long term energy contracts in Central Asia to prevent that energy to West and drive up the prices and for similar reasons they are supporting iran in middleast. its cash money that all matters. energy wars u cannot win with debt. u have to deliver direct money to rulers.

Gazprom Pulls a Trump Card

By Dmitry Zhdannikov
Reuters

.

Gazprom, locked in a dispute that could deny Ukraine gas supplies next year, tightened the screws on Thursday by agreeing to buy Central Asian gas that would normally have gone to its neighbor.

If Ukraine did revoke the lease, the Russian navy would not have a fully functioning port during those cold Russian winters. That would be the most hilarious sight: seeing the mighty Russian navy all iced up for four months of the year. 😉

Does Vladivostok freeze over as well?

So, if Ukraine decided that Russian administration is no longer friendly and decided to revoke the lease of the Crimean port, it too will be just politics.

Of course they can if they want. It is their port facilities that they are leasing to the Russians.

That would be the most hilarious sight: seeing the mighty Russian navy all iced up for four months of the year.

Mighty my A$$. Their main role is a support role for their boomers and they are barely a credible force to do even that. They have no world wide shipping lanes to protect, they have no empire that needs command of the seas to maintain. If they suddenly lost their entire fleet militarily it would make no difference to them whatsoever… except for the lost men and women, and of course potential lost revenue from future naval vessel sales.

Of course I would think the revenue generated from the lease that actually makes them money is as much for their benefit as for Russia’s.

Perhaps global warming will solve their problem soon enough. 🙂

The price negotiated with Ukraine was under a friendly government. This has changed. Just as there is a reward for the Ukraine to be friendly to Russia there is a penalty for looking west. It is just normal politics.

So, if Ukraine decided that Russian administration is no longer friendly and decided to revoke the lease of the Crimean port, it too will be just politics.

If Ukraine did revoke the lease, the Russian navy would not have a fully functioning port during those cold Russian winters. That would be the most hilarious sight: seeing the mighty Russian navy all iced up for four months of the year. 😉

Sean, “justification”, well you got Alaska for a Bargain of Russia, yes they were stupid in doing so, seen from the current economic perspective (rather smart in the military aspect back then), nonetheless I think they should have paid Russia a little extra for it by now (and yes, that IS a personal view there).

Really? So why am I paying about 1.5 times as much as you do? Your prices haven’t gone that much up and your reserve has most probably gone up too, without really paying for it.

When I remember well, they helped out Stalin from his own stupidity in 1941-45 already.
You are coming from, when paying 1.5 times?
1 litre 97 octane is ~ 1,26 € right now, including ~ 70% taxes.

As it is, you can test nuclear debris to determine the origin of the weaponized materials. Then it’s just a process of elimination.

Yeah, but the US has a history of its intelligence agencies telling its government exactly what that government wants to hear. Not just WMD stuff about Iraq, but also stuff in Vietnam to get the US into the war.

The problem is that Ukraine signed a 5 years contract with Gazprom for $ 50 per 1000 cubic m. After only 1 year the russians are demanding 4 times more…

A year ago was before the orange revolution and a change of government. When Chavez got in power in Venesuala and survived a CIA coup the US withholding spare parts for their F-16s sounds exactly the same as this problem.

The energy prices each customer has to pay are found at the stock-markets at first!

The Russians are using low energy prices to reward friendly former Soviet states and allies. The price negotiated with Ukraine was under a friendly government. This has changed. Just as there is a reward for the Ukraine to be friendly to Russia there is a penalty for looking west. It is just normal politics.

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that they had built up militarily to the point that they could collectively challenge India :rolleyes:

India cannot afford even to individually fight them. and it is not limited to South Asia context. u have to look at AFrica, middleast, Central Asia and even russia.

As the saying goes “there’s a sucker born every minute” :diablo:

I guess I can live with that viewpoint; when you look at it in the light of the current world energy situation, for example, buying Alaska that cheap was sort of a “steal” 😀

Really?!

The energy prices each customer has to pay are found at the stock-markets at first!

Thanks to Iraq the US-conumers pay less for energy at home since ?!
At least the Iraqi people at home do!

The earnings of the people involved in trading it, this maybe a different story.

Sean, “justification”, well you got Alaska for a Bargain of Russia, yes they were stupid in doing so, seen from the current economic perspective (rather smart in the military aspect back then), nonetheless I think they should have paid Russia a little extra for it by now (and yes, that IS a personal view there).

Really? So why am I paying about 1.5 times as much as you do? Your prices haven’t gone that much up and your reserve has most probably gone up too, without really paying for it.

again wrong assumption. who do u think Burma, Nepal, Bangladesh follows or even Srilanka South Asia?.

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that they had built up militarily to the point that they could collectively challenge India :rolleyes:

Process of elimination. Where would AQ get a nuclear weapon? Russia? An outside possibility. NK? I’d rate this as entirely implausible, given the fact that the Jonger is rather happy to continue to exist. Pakistan? The most plausible of the three, but they’d probably not like the resulting consequences which would pretty much hand the subcontinent to India on a silver platter.

again wrong assumption. who do u think Burma, Nepal, Bangladesh follows or even Srilanka South Asia?.( and India can do nothing about them) I will not go into Uzbeks, Kazaks, NK now. u need China permission to change anything on which are of matter of interest to those sitting in Beijing. and which will mean hard bargaining.

Interesting, but I don’t see that one happening in the near term.

It’s pretty much an open secret that that’s what both sides are gearing up for. I think if the US were stretched that thin China might see it as a golden opportunity. I’m less worried about that though that I am the fact the having troops deployed across the world in combat zones right now is eating up hardware lifetime at an accelerated rate, making us have to slash procurement to fund deployment which compounds the problem, and really turning a lot of people off of joining the armed forces.

Followed by the Taiwan land grab.

Interesting, but I don’t see that one happening in the near term.

Hypothetically speaking when the nuke goes off in Washington and Al Qieda claims responsibility then who do you nuke? What kind of proof would the world require for it to be okay with the US nuking Tehran?

Process of elimination. Where would AQ get a nuclear weapon? Russia? An outside possibility. NK? I’d rate this as entirely implausible, given the fact that the Jonger is rather happy to continue to exist. Pakistan? The most plausible of the three, but they’d probably not like the resulting consequences which would pretty much hand the subcontinent to India on a silver platter.

As it is, you can test nuclear debris to determine the origin of the weaponized materials. Then it’s just a process of elimination.

althoug Alaska can partially be seen as stealing

How are you going to justify that?