VnomadOh it’s all well and good talking about process, but the Scorpion is cleared for PWIV and Brinstone and as such is already ahead of both the Typhoon and F35!:D;)
Is it? I thought all they’d done was hang it on a static display unit. Also, if I’m not mistaken the Scorpion doesn’t have an LDP integrated yet.
Vnomadif Russia doesn’t attack, and that’s enough to patrol Finland’s skies, then yes
Russia might attack, but then so might alien from another dimension. then Finland needs to start building starships and phasers
Fins realise this all too well btw, they even made a movie about it
http://www.starwreck.com/
So the likelihood of a conflict between Finland and Russia is at par with an invasion by an extra-terrestrial aliens?
I hope so, considering most serving Flankers have obsolete technology and cost 20%-30% as much as an F-35
but until they’ve flown the F-35 operationally for a while without them crashing, I’ll put my money on obsolete Flankers
1. No recent build/new build Flanker is available for $25-35M.
2. In the 3F configuration the F-35 is far superior to best Flanker on the market.
3. Over 30,000 flight hours logged with only one Cat A mishap. Your complaints about the F-35’s safety record have no basis whatsoever.
and as 43JSR pointed out, the Su-35 will have many technologies that counter the F-35’s strengths, at a fraction of the cost
Quoting JSR to bolster your argument is an funny decision. We’ve got people from all sorts of backgrounds here and one of the very few things that everyone – French, Americans, Russians, Brits etc all agree on – is that JSR is an idiot.
technologies that could probably be installed into obsolete Flankers to make them useful again, not unlike the idea of installing AESA radars into older F-15s and F-16s, which the USAF has said will help detect stealth aircraft at range
Who told you that AESA allows detection of stealth aircraft? The USAF has never said anything that absurd.
I’m sure a number of companies would be all too happy and perfectly capable of upgrading F-18s, at a decent cost
as for the F-35, previous US stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22) were eventually only built in a fraction of planned aircraft
if the F-35 runs into any more surprises (technical problems, maintenance costs, unit cost), this will reduce numbers built, which will increase cost, which reduce numbers built, etc…
Recurring unit cost is function of production rate not of the duration of the production run. And the latest production rate extrapolating from Congress budget figures is 80-85 units per year. Which will rise to 120+ by the end of the SDD phase.
neither will future Su’s
meaning any satellite or stealthy recon UAV that can detect the F-35s optically can relay that information back to the Su’s, which will then be able to engage the F-35s at ranges longer than the AMRAAM’s range
There’s no satellite or ‘stealthy recon UAV’ capable of such a feat in development anywhere. You’re again indulging in fiction/fantasy.
but I imagine opening those weapon bays does reduce its stealth, while the AMRAAM isn’t stealthy, and uses a data link to the F-35 for target updates. all factors that increase the chance of F-35 detection. plus I doubt the F-35’s rear is very stealthy, or its outlet very cool. so as soon as it has fired its missiles and runs off, its risks being spotted
The F-35 in contrast doesn’t need to rely on good fortune or mythical technology to track its non-stealthy opponents.
as for shooting down AMRAAMs, when they get at short range they use their own radar, making them easy to track and engage, Russia has long developed weapons and tactics aimed at targetting the West’s overdependance on radar
Flankers already carry a huge number of a2A weapons, trading a few to deplete incoming AMRAAMs would be a superb strategy
Let me know when, instead of letting it soak up precious funding, the PAK FA is canned in favour of cheap fighters that can level the playing field by simply shooting down enemy AAMs, like an airborne CIWS.
the USAF said AESA can track stealth aircraft at a good range
at what range can the F-35 detect the F-22? or can a T-50?
with its optical sensors the F-35 can certainly detect any missiles as soon as they come within optical range. it’s just a matter of time before Russian jets have this ability
Whoever said that was either drunk or just ignorant. AESA is progression from PESA allowing for better jamming resistance and better multi-functionality (incl. LPI potential & EW applications). What it is NOT, is a anti-stealth silver bullet. As for optical sensors, their range while scanning (large FoV) is very limited.
here’s a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N9To90e-7s
by the way, the Gripen is an aircraft made by Sweden, in case you didn’t know that either
Since the Gripen’s STOL capability isn’t in question, this ^ here is a strawman.
sure, I fondly remember the Dutch defence minister calling LMT everytime he got a question about the F-35 in parliament
and the story of LMT bribing a Dutch prince to buy the F-16. I wonder how much they paid this time
and don’t get me started on Norway, they chose the F-35 because it’ll cost “$30 million” a piece. a logic which Cananda followed, but was forced to reconsider
btw both the Netherlands and Norway have economic reasons for buying the F-35
Right… the world is so very unfair. I suppose you have a ready excuse for a Danish F-35 order as well. Its a pity that such fervent rooting for the little guy isn’t going change realities of the world.
ofcourse not, then there would be no more reason to buy the F-35
the USN is developing a UCAV, which will be able of carrying AMRAAMs
but I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the organisation that rejected the USAF previous golden goose, the F-111, is developing an alternative to the F-35
The UCLASS, a low cost alternative to the F-35? Seriously? You think Finland can invest a fleet of SHs/F-35Cs, E-2Ds and a network of satellites to support UCAV operations? Not to mention, a missile defence system capable of exo-atmospheric intercept, to protect those vital satcom channels.
it shows how useless it can be to buy gold plated (stealth) aircraft
Do you really need an explanation on a difference between a COIN campaign and a conventional war?
VnomadI think they are, if you reduce the number used, that leaves you more hours and spare parts to extend their frame lives
so if Finland can do with fewer jets, this way they can greatly extend the F-18s’ lives
So an ideal situation as per you in 2030 is an FAF fielding 12-15 Hornets.
today, yes. if the could get its software to work, its engine not to rip itself to parts, its stealth to work as promised
Even in an immature Blk 2B configuration, it more effective than most serving Flankers. The Finns will likely be receiving a mix of Blk 4s and Blk 5s.
but by 2025 (when Finland might have an operational F-35 force), they will face off against upgraded Su-27 types, equiped with sensors and mission computers that could be 10 years younger than the F-35’s
as I’ve explained, they’ll be way cheaper, and just as powerfull or better
not to mention technology that doesn’t even exist yet, but will then. like pod-carried S-wave radars, that’ll be perfectly capable of detecting the F-35 at a decent range, despite its stealth. or pod carried lasers
You’re describing a fantasy. For one, nobody’s funding F-18 upgrades. Even a drop in AESA has found no takers yet. The F-35’s upgrade program is a surety and with development costs subsidized through large US orders. The definitive Blk 3F configuration is still two years away but has already been put through two tech refreshes.
either way, the F-35 has some major problems when facing Su-27 types
if it turns on its radar, it risks giving away its position. if it gets within optical/IR range, the Su’s have their own sensors that can spot the F-35
also, since the Su’s don’t have stealth, they can use their radar and jamming at full power
The F-35 doesn’t need a radar to generate a tracking solution. It can use off-board sources as well as the ASQ-239.
even if the F-35 does get within firing range without being detected and getting the first shot, they’ll give away their position as soon as they do
then the Su’s will have a good amount of time to fire back with missiles that outrange the AMRAAM, or shoot down any AMRAAMs with short ranged missiles (the IRIS-T can do this)
so if it’s a matter of trading missiles at maximum range, the F-35 will be an overpriced and limited (4, maybe 6 missiles) platform, and a fat target as soon as it turns and shows its non-stealthy, big IR rear end
and it’ll be duelling with Su’s that carry way more missiles, fuel, and have superior performance
Your argument is again devolving into military fiction. The F-35 doesn’t give away its position ‘as soon’ as it launches nor is it practical for an enemy fighter to focus on shooting down incoming MRAAMs.
this contrary to the F-22, which has the superb speed/performance, stealth and a2a maximised sensors to hit and run
although in the near future its AMRAAMs run the same risk of getting shot down before they can close in, and its stealth might be compromised
It wasn’t doing much hitting and running. The opposition forces simply couldn’t track it. Period.
you don’t have to knock out the airbase with Scuds, you just need to keep those jets in their cover long enough for the cruise missiles and bombers to start their attack run
although any Finnish SAMs and radars would be a great and relatively easy target for Scuds too
Do you know what the range of a Scud is?
really? here’s the Gripen’s capability
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.be/p/the-saab-gripen-ng-capable-and.html
Blogspot? Seriously? Is it your blog by any chance?
I’ve never seen an add from LMT saying how you can maintain the F-35 in your garage. can it even take off from a landing strip that’s not check for small debris?
That may be because LM isn’t pitching the aircraft to home-owners. The Marines on the other hand require the aircraft to be capable of operating from temporary bases close to the FEBA.
and the Gripen is maintained at Finland’s neighbour, Sweden, who I’m sure will be happy to help Finland build them themselves. plus you get a guaranteed, low cost purchase price and multi-year cost
meanwhile the F-35 went from $30 million to a $100+ million in less then two decades, it could have major flaws which will have to be corrected after many of the aircraft are already built, if/when there’s a problem it’ll have to be sent to the Netherlands, Italy or the US, and the USN (its second biggest operator) says it’ll be more expensive to maintain than the F-18
and if the F-22 is any indicator, it’s going to be a hangar queen
Sweden’s neighbour Netherlands and neighbour Norway have already ordered the F-35. Neighbour Denmark is all but certain to join them. Meanwhile neighbour Poland has specified an aircraft requirement tailored to the F-35. Its cost is falling by an average of 4% per year and using the Swiss Gripen offer ($150M) as a reference point, the cost differential wouldn’t be all that high (at least on acquisition). And it’ll remain a more mature design than the Gripen E which is still in early development (IOC scheduled for 2023).
if Russia does go to war, Finland shouldn’t get the F-35, it should get the F-22, nukes and a whole lot of shelters
The F-22 isn’t in production. The financial and political costs of a nuclear deterrent are far too steep. And Finland has probably invested in hardened shelters.
I don’t think they should, I think they should go with UCAVs instead
but if you insist on an advanced manned fighter by 2025 for Finland, an upgraded F-18 will be a great and cheap alternative to the F-35, or even the Gripen
No UCAV capable of air combat is under development anywhere. No upgrade is available that would bring the F-18 at par with the latest iteration of the Su-27 let alone the PAK FA.
too bad there are only 180 F-22s in the world, which have a history of hangar queens, and being grounded for chocking their pilots
and that as time goes by, Russia and China will develop ever better radars, optical sensors and anti-missile systems (like lasers) that will make the F-22’s tactic of going in at high speed and throwing out AMRAAMs at maximum range obsolete
not to mention the possibility of swarming the F-22 with cruise missiles and UAVs, a strategy which China seems to have developed. if the F-22 wants to trade AMRAAMs for unmanned Mig-15s, it already lost
Let me know when the PAK FA & J-20 are cancelled. That’ll be the only true testament to the unconventional strategies that you’re espousing.
except that those operations have been 95% of missions in the last two decades
and that if you’re facing off against peer air power, you’re probably in a nuke war and your base has already been destroyed
100% of all PLAAF missions in the last two decades have been performed without launching a weapon. Using your logic, they should perhaps start fielding fighters without any weaponry.
Fact remain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc are irrelevant as far as Finland’s requirements are concerned.
Vnomadintercepting, identifying and if need be engaging any intruders
in current times that means giving the finger to lost Tu-95s. the US uses F-22s for this, the UK Typhoons. talk about overkill, you’re using $100+ million jets as glorified bouncers. the F-22 even needs to downgrade its stealth
if that’s all, Finland doesn’t need F-35s, or even Gripens to do this, F-18s will do just fine
And you don’t think 60 F-18s are overkill for this role? You could maintain a 24×7 QRA with a quarter of that number. So you should therefore be advocating a huge roll-back in FAF strength.
if you’re talking actual combat, these handful of available F-35s will need to fly wing by wing with post 2020 upgraded Su-27s and Su-30s (less than $50 million), or god forbid Su-35s and T-50s
if the Russian suddenly decide to get agressive, the F-35 (or a Gripen) will last only seconds longer than an F-18
That’s absurd. The F-35 will dominate any member of the Su-27 family including the Su-35S. How well its likely to fare against the PAK FA is a debatable issue (but not pertinent to this thread).
if you’re talking full out war, the Finnish fighters will be destroyed really fast, thanks to Scuds taking out air bases. at least the Gripen is designed to operate in exactly such a scenario, using roads for take off and landing (and maintenance, good luck maintaining the F-35 on a parking)
1. It doesn’t work like that in real life. You don’t blow up airbases with ballistic missiles (unless they’re packing a nuclear payload). Its far more effective to employ cruise missiles/stand-off weaponry to hit aircraft shelters, storage sites, radar/C4I nodes and to crater runways. The downside is such an attack can be intercepted by fighters and ground-based air defences.
2. You’ll be able to service the F-35 in a parking lot perfectly well, as long as you’ve done the legwork previously. And if Finland requires a fighter fleet that can be dispersed, the F-35B is more effective still. And thanks to its VLO airframe, its lot lot more survivable when it does get airborne.
I believe so. why else is Putin investing in all that military gear, which in all likelyhood will never be used in an actual war?
Your exact words were – ‘you underestimate the willingness of generals, banks and military industry to start a war‘. And if, as you say, this applies to Russia, Finland’s defence priorities become a lot less opaque.
Finland is in an economic crisis, which will likely get worse. now is not the time to spend billions more on weapons which will not actually be used unless you’re in a nuclear war
for now the old F-18 is good enough. but if Finland does want to to upgrade them at some point, they’ll be able to do it extremely cheap, compared to buying new jets
If conflict is impossible, why bother upgrading them?
it doesn’t have to be an equivalent, for one thing because it doesn’t cost as much. if the USAF had stuck with new and upgraded F-15s instead of wasting all that money on (just 180) F-22s, that would have saved a huge amount of money, and I doubt the US would be any less of a military power because of it (if anything more, because they would be that much less in debt)
That cost curve swings the other way when the fighter’s loss-exchange ratio is computed. At Northern Edge 2006 that figure was 144-0 for the participating F-22s. If they can reproduce even a tenth of that in wartime, the economics rest in its favour. There’s a reason why Russia & China are pursuing new clean sheet designs instead of merely upgrading their J-10s and Sukhoi derivatives further.
in the same way upgrading the F-16, Mirage 2000 and Tornado would have made for an excellent alternative for the F-35, Rafale and Typhoon respectively (over Lybia the Tornado was needed for the Typhoon to make ground attacks), at a much lower cost
also the A-10 is superior to the F-35 or any other fast jet in the ground attack role. ask Saddam, the Taliban or ISIS
These are irrelevant examples applicable mostly to COIN campaigns. The AC-130, for example, is even more effective at an attack role than the A-10. Unfortunately, a decimated ADGE and benign air environment cannot be taken for granted in a conventional conflict.
Vnomadexcactly. and since a full scale Russian invasion is impossible (unless you want to start throwing nukes around), chances of Russia invading Finland are pretty much zero
which doesn’t mean Finland shouldn’t have an army. but an F-35 (or even Gripen E) would not be the most efficient or even effective (1300 km border, I figure it’s easier to guard this with 54 F-18s than with 25 or so F-35s) choice
What does ‘guarding’ a border entail?
ah, but you underestimate the willingness of generals, banks and military industry to start a war, or at least create the threat of one, to make some money, or get more budgets
I imagine this applies to Russia too?
the thing is, upgrading the F-18s with 2025 tech could actually be an extremely efficient and effective solution
Question is, why do you need to splurge all that cash on an ‘extremely efficient and effective solution’? What’s wrong with the Hornet as it exists today?
so why introduce the F-35 by mid 2020’s when you can just upgrade your F-18s with the same ability at a fraction of the cost
with radar, sensor and weapon that’ll be at least 10 years younger than the F-35, meaning they’ll be way cheaper, and probably a lot better
Not happening. Similarly, the Mirage isn’t an upgrade away from being equivalent to the Rafale, the Tornado isn’t an upgrade away from the EF and the F-15 isn’t an upgrade away from being equivalent to the F-22. And while the Bison was useful, it was not a substitute for a 4th gen fighter.
VnomadOh I wasn’t using that as argument that Finland should not operate a fighter force.
Actually that’s what I’m suggesting. Finland’s defence requirements are a product of its circumstances and its location. If it were instead sandwiched between the US and Mexico, perhaps it would not need fast jets. In its current circumstances, if we subscribe to the argument that the Russian threat isn’t just remote, its altogether non-existent, then that brings the AF’s very purpose into question, especially at its current size.
Just that I think using the “Russia would use all of its assets, we need the best thing possible” when it comes to debating F-35 vs Gripen vs whatever is silly since if Russia used all of its assets, no several dozen F-35s would protect Finland.
That would be the case, if a potential conflict involved only the two countries. The way I see it the FAF has two primary functions –
1. To deter conflict by retaining enough combat capability to make war prohibitively expensive (vis a vis the gains) for the other side.
2. To carry out a holding action, until EU & Nordic states can mobilize in support (assuming they aren’t already in action).
The FAF’s focus will be its own theatre and will likely face only a fraction of the Russian military. 60 odd F-35s would form a fairly potent force.
VnomadFinland needs AF like any other country does to train pilots for changing future prospects and border patrolling.
Finland was not a member in USSR so there are no uncertain borderlines between these two nations.
What does that even mean? Why do you need an AESA radar, high end EW system, HMDS, IRST, MAWS and sensor fusion in an aircraft employed for insipid border policing (and I’m referring to the Gripen E here)?
Much better to downsize the existing F-18 fleet, (which is already a huge overkill) and flog the ‘newest’ ones to 2040, without upgrades.They haven’t had to undergo the stresses of carrier ops (unlike the USMC’s units scheduled for retirement in 2030), so airframe life shouldn’t be an overwhelming concern.
VnomadYes, wars 70 years ago are very relevant today.
lol @ anyone who thinks Russia is going to attack Finland in any way.
Its far far more likely than an attack from fellow EU members, Sweden or Poland. And if we accept the idea that war is an impossible (rather than just an improbable) prospect, does Finland need an air force at all? And as a corollary to that – does Russia need a big air force? After all, who’s nutty enough to attack Russia?
Vnomad128 airframes/ 11 airframes year = 11.6 years
We are in June 2015, plus 11.6 years, thats 2027 not 2025.
I would imagine that those “80 local” includes the follow on order of 45 units for the Adla/Mn implied in the “Livre Blanche”, if so thats entirely correct. The 2028 date cames from “Air&Coscous” and implies the Indian order and an increase in production rates.
I included the ones to be delivered this year. Also, that should be 85 rather than 80 (225 total minus 140 delivered). So yes.. maybe early 2027, assuming the production rate isn’t boosted (which might happen even in the absence of an Indian orders).
The latest Swedish MOD doc´s indicates that the 60 Gripen E already contracted, the last airframes will be delivered between August 2026 and January 2027.
That sounds fair.
France signed for the F-35? Thats news.
France plans to do without a stealth fighter. I think you know that.
It was already “Kicked off” almost two years ago in France. There are two prototypes flying today, and no one has ever mentioned that the substitute would be manned or entirely manned.
No one said that whatever substitutes the fleets of Eurocanards will be entirely manned.
The Neuron/Taranis derivative is no substitute for ‘tactical fast jet firepower’. Its incapable of performing basic fighter missions that even something like the MiG-21 does routinely. Which is why the USN isn’t preparing to choose between the UCLASS and NGAD programs.
The UCAV type in development today will be useful but can hardly be called a Eurocanard replacement.
If it is a substitute/replacement, perhaps it should be included in the 225 aircraft cap as directed by the MoD White Paper? Which would reduce the Rafale’s total domestic orders to 180 odd units (with deliveries of 40 pending). May be even less.
Last time i´ve checked the “cheaper alternative” is being built in Lynkoping and it does look to have a pretty bright future ahead.
Cheers
Again, not a replacement to anything. Its an aircraft that was expected to be a peer to the Eurocanard & Rafale. As for ‘bright future’, well… lets say, I don’t see it taking away any orders from the F-35 book at least. Vice versa may not apply (eg. Finland). 🙂
VnomadYou are one and a half year late, that comment would hold water in 2013, not anymore.
Two Western fighter designs not called “35” have already got enough orders to get them into the “late twenties”, the Gripen till 2027, the Rafale till 2028, the chances of neither of them getting more orders for the next decade and a half are near zero. And whatever substitutes the Eurocanards will be flying in the beggining of the thirties. The days when Richard Aboulafia confidently predicted that LM would end up being the sole western provider of tatical fast jet firepower are trully dead.
The Rafale has a confirmed order book of some 128 aircraft (80 local + 48 export) which would take delivery to around 2025 at the current rate (assuming all AdlA Mirages are retired within 10 years). If the rate is boosted then maybe… 2023. The Gripen’s prospects are a little harder to pin down with Brazil’s requirements being uncertain (owing to the absence of a genuine military threat).
With regard to European replacements – there is simply no way one is arriving in the early thirties. For one, there’s no customer demand, with most larger European air forces signing on to the F-35, and the smaller ones settling for the Gripen E (only unknown being the Luftwaffe post-2030).
For another, even a tight development schedule will require at least 15 years which would mean the process should kick off before 2020. No sign of such a thing, nor any available funding for the same. A UCAV perhaps yes, but that will at best only supplement fast jets, not be a substitute. The USN’s FA-XX despite being on paper is a more concrete project than any comparable effort in Europe.
The F-35 will have competition but from cheaper alternatives built in Turkey/Korea/India, not from Europe.
VnomadVnomad – Are you saying that being a submariner makes a person unable to comprehend the advice of air warfare experts?
Well.. I’m saying his opinion is at odd with his peers (who are air warfare experts) in the USAF, USMC and most other air forces including China.
VnomadThe CNO is forced to say there is no such thing as a stealthy airplane. If he were to say otherwise, it would be an admission that his surface fleet is not survivable. If the surface fleet is not survivable, then Congress would be foolish to continue funding it and the surface navy ceases to exist. So Greenert sticks his fingers in his ears and says LALALALALALALAIcan’thearyou!LALALALALA.
He is a submariner unless I’m mistaken. I imagine the Navy fighter jocks getting chewed up by F-22s in joint exercises, would have a different take on the matter. The USAF brass believes that whatever else may or may not be featured on a new fighter, VLO capability is absolutely mandatory. A view apparently shared by almost every other entity engaged in fighter development.
VnomadBy the way, the harpoon cap on the Jag shld mute any critics against this Jag update. It’s a pretty potent cap even if the targeting might have been remote (P8?)
While it should be able to utilize off-board targeting too (via datalink), it does have a radar – Elta EL/M-2032.
VnomadWith regard to the six missile plan, will they be able to modify existing F-35s to carry that or will the exercise require structural changes making it feasible only for new-build aircraft?
VnomadAlexander Korolev wrote this impressive piece debunking the myths that Russo-Chinese alliance is not feasible.
http://www.theasanforum.org/the-strategic-alignment-between-russia-and-china-myths-and-reality/
An impressive article. I was making the same point (albeit less cogently) as Mr Korolev vis a a vis ‘national interest’ –
The reality is that states’ policies are shaped, first and foremost, by national interests and not trust. “Trust” between states in international politics is unlikely. At the core of any alliance is a transaction based on common interests; the degree of overlap in these interests predefines whether there is any “trust.” An alliance between two countries is not a marriage between two people, a relationship where trust plays a crucial role. Trust never plays a decisive role in shaping the foreign policies of states. Similarly to Russia, the United States and China also do not trust anyone and are not trusted by others. Alliances emerge and disappear according to international circumstances. China was an ally of the Soviet Union in the 1950s. By the 1970s, however, there was an alignment between China and the United States. In the 1980s, China announced a non-alignment strategy, whereas Russia has always had allies. The United States was the major anti-Communist country during the Cold War. However, as some scholars perspicaciously note, how does one explain the fact that Nixon, who was a major opponent of Communism, courted Mao’s China and snubbed Taiwan, which was America’s loyal, anti-Communist ally? Why did Carter, a human rights crusader, turn a blind eye to China’s human rights violations and elevate US-China relations? Why did Reagan, a militant anti-Communist, restore US-China military cooperation? What made Clinton rush to delink China’s Most Favored Nation status from its human rights performance?28 Were these sudden outbursts of American trust toward China?
When conditions for a balancing coalition are ripe, states do not have the luxury of following their subjective preferences and basing their relations on what is called “trust.” China-Russia relations have had ups and downs during their long history, but there is nothing abnormal in terms of trust and mistrust between the two countries. Like many other states, China and Russia do not have to trust each other to form an alliance that will serve certain purposes and then be dismissed once the international situation changes. Even if we were to accept the assumption that trust matters in alliance formation, there is no reason to see trust as a problem in China-Russia relations. The two started to interact with each other well before the United States emerged on the world map, and there is a certain geopolitical sense of accommodating a big neighbor in both. Recently, as many rightly note, Putin and Xi seem to be friends. and the level of trust between them is higher than is normal between the heads of two countries. According to Alexander Gabuev, “Putin has more trust in Xi than in any Chinese leader before him and any current Western leader,” and the “sincerity Putin feels in Xi has helped the Kremlin to adjust many policies towards China that had been in place for over a decade.” In centralized political systems like China and Russia, personal trust between top decision makers may have a greater impact on foreign policy than in decentralized systems.
Sign In
