How much of a military threat is Russia really?

I keep hearing about Russia as a military threat to the west, but I wonder if in reality that is the case.

Harking back to the late 1970s the Warsaw pact countries had a population approaching 400 million. They were largely totalitarian states that spent large parts of their GDP on arms. They faced the west across the Iron Curtain where countries spent large amounts to deter that threat.

But then the Soviet Union collapsed and countries like Poland, Albania, Rumania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia effectively changed sides. Soviet republics also left the pact and either joined NATO or remained hostile to Russia. What is left is a Russia with a population of under 150, 000,000 & less than half the manpower of the Warsaw Pact Countries whilst the NATO Alliance has been boosted by something approaching 150,000,000 people.

Nuclear disarmers would have us believe that nuclear weapons are of no use. If so how does Russia with its 1 aircraft carrier and conscript army pose a threat to the west?

I keep hearing about Russia as a military threat to the west, but I wonder if in reality that is the case.

 

Harking back to the late 1970s the Warsaw pact countries had a population approaching 400 million. They were largely totalitarian states that spent large parts of their GDP on arms. They faced the west across the Iron Curtain where countries spent large amounts to deter that threat.

 

But then the Soviet Union collapsed and countries like Poland, Albania, Rumania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia effectively changed sides. Soviet republics also left the pact and either joined NATO or remained hostile to Russia. What is left is a Russia with a population of under 150, 000,000 & less than half the manpower of the Warsaw Pact Countries whilst the NATO Alliance has been boosted by something approaching 150,000,000 people.

 

Nuclear disarmers would have us believe that nuclear weapons are of no use. If so how does Russia with its 1 aircraft carrier and conscript army pose a threat to the west?

An army is as dangerous as its intentions. Whilst in practice the Russian army can be defeated with conventional means almost as easily as Saddam's Iraqi standing forces (which, in 1992 after years of the Iran/Iraq war, were pretty comparable to current Russian capability) it is the way in which it is used that causes the West problems. Putin picks his battles pretty cleverly, Georgia and the Crim were smart because nobody really cared enough to die for them.

The Russian navy is only dangerous due to its attack subs, the Akula class is pretty modern and can cause damage to Western navies. The Kirov and Kuznetsov are theoretically dangerous but there is cause to believe that the lack of a 'Goalkeeper' equivalent anti-rocket system (The Kashtan is a combined AA/rocket launcher) means they could be taken down with a barrage of harpoon rockets.

The airforce is again, theoretically strong, but numbers of modern jets are very low, the SU-35 and SU-34 are progressions on older plane types and 'should' not stand a chance against modern F35 and Eurofighters. Most of the airforce consists of older SU27 variants.

The army consists of 200,000+ active troops. Many of whom are poor sods from rural areas that need to earn money for their families. They are well trained but largely untested in real open combat against an equally well trained army. Their support equipment is outdated and often subject to break downs. In comparison: Greece has nearly 100,000 active soldiers. That is the practically bankrupt Greece...

Eurocorps, the collaborative force run by Germany and France (mainly) can have 60,000 troops in the field within 2 weeks for defence of EU territory. Equally the collaborative Benelux force can have a similar amount up and running in a few weeks.

All in all, Russia is only dangerous due to a willingness to use its force offensively.

(Edit - some sources: Janes.com, a UK Colonel with intelligence duties I graduated with, a Dutch Captain with a role in the ARRC in NATO.)

(Edit - some sources: Janes.com, a UK Colonel with intelligence duties I graduated with, a Dutch Captain with a role in the ARRC in NATO.)

can you explain that

I think you are underestimating Russia, claiming France and Germany are an equivalent to Russia I doubt. Russia has no intention of attacking EU land.. it's American Nato that 'wanted' to control Russia.

I predict that the US/NATO are going to come together and take out North Korea, and China won't do a thing about it.

How can we know?

We only seem to hear what we are wanted to hear, and are at the mercy of propagandists with their own agenda.

I don't trust any of them...

However Putin has given out some pretty clear warnings (interviews) of what he intends to do if America and Europe doesn't back off. Sabre rattling or serious intent? - only he knows.

I think the Putin is way to clever to engage Russia

in open conflict with the West.

Sure, he is flexing the muscles, but war is not nowhere near his agenda.

How can we know?

 

We only seem to hear what we are wanted to hear, and are at the mercy of propagandists with their own agenda.

 

I don't trust any of them...

 

However Putin has given out some pretty clear warnings (interviews) of what he intends to do if America and Europe doesn't back off. Sabre rattling or serious intent? - only he knows.

It is pretty easy to know. We know the population and know that the population of what was The Warsaw Pact has more than halved. We know how much steel they produce and satellites report on arms factories. You can't hide an aircraft carrier an aircraft factory or a division of tanks. We know what they have and pretty much what it can do. We encountered Russian tanks in Iraq and they weren't much good. So it is only the latest stuff that is unknown, but they haven't got much that is modern. Even their only aircraft carrier is 30 years old and makes more smoke than a black cab.

There is a lot of bluff and sabre rattling but there is one inescapable fact. If Putin were to attack the west he would lose so much hardware in the first few hours that the republics that didn't get their freedom would have the firepower to try to gain it by force of arms. The reslt would be pretty much like Syria is now.

I predict that the US/NATO are going to come together and take out North Korea. . .

and what makes you think that ?

We only seem to hear what we are wanted to hear, and are at the mercy of propagandists with their own agenda.

 

I don't trust any of them...

I absolutely agree. This idea that it's all the fault of the dastardly Russians, backing a legal government in Syria, hacking into the Clinton emails, giving out news that is just propaganda..

We are being propagandised by our own governments, and have been for years.

Why all the sudden alarm if Trump wants better relations with Russia? Isn't that a good thing?

Yet it seems to have unleashed a tsunami of advice that he must "stand up to Russian aggression" and so on. If Putin had "stood up to western aggression" when the west invaded Iraq and waged war by proxy or by air attack on Libya, Syria and Yemen, where would we be now?

Western governments are being massively hypocritical about Russian aggression, imo, and about Russian propaganda.

can you explain that

 

I think you are underestimating Russia, claiming France and Germany are an equivalent to Russia I doubt. Russia has no intention of attacking EU land.. it's American Nato that 'wanted' to control Russia.

Easy to explain - Russia has a GDP smaller than Italy and although it spends more on defence than Italy, it has a population far smaller than the combined population of Germany and France.

I did not claim France and Germany are equivalent by the way, I claim, based on long nights with a glass of whisky and a sneaky cigar talking to some fellows who know their stuff, that Russia is nowhere near the threat it once was. If it ever was.

In fact, one of my military books (can't quite remember which one) states quite clearly that the height of Russian global power was in fact before WW1 and has never recovered from the Bolshevik revolution - provided you take nuclear capability out of the picture.

and what makes you think that ?

Drink and drugs.

In the early 80s, the threat (or perceived threat) of Soviet Invasion was very real. They went to a lot of time and trouble to map the UK:

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-mystery-and-strange-beauty-of-russian-maps-of-the-uk--g1yS7F_5Vg

https://www.sovietmaps.com/history

Although as usual, the DM hype it up a bit, stating that there are routes for tanks:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209137/The-Soviet-road-map-shows-USSR-planned-invade-Manchester.html

Is domination and invasion of Europe still their intention?