• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela.

Doc91478

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
2,778
Reaction score
790
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela. And Why the U.S. Is So Angry About it​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-so-angry-about-it/ar-BBQV0FI?ocid=spartanntp
When two of Russia’s most modern, nuclear-capable bombers landed in Venezuela earlier this week, American officials quickly took note.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted out a statement calling the move “two corrupt governments squandering public funds, and squelching liberty and freedom while their people suffer.” The angry reaction may well have been the intended purpose, according to experts on Russia and Venezuela.... The Tu-160 bombers were manufactured at the end of the Cold War and are among the most advanced strategic bombers in the world. They are capable of flying at twice the speed of sound and carrying both conventional and nuclear-armed cruise missiles that have a range of more than 3,400 miles. It’s not known whether the Russian bombers were carrying any kind of armament on their visit to Venezuela.... For Venezuela, whose collapsing economy has led to chronic food and medicine shortages, the Russian mission represents a useful cameo on the world stage. President Nicolas Maduro will also be happy of a demonstration to potential opponents in the Venezuelan military that he still has powerful friends in Moscow, Moya-Ocampos said. The United States has imposed sanctions on several top Venezuelan officials, and earlier this year barred Americans from buying Venezuelan debt or debt from the state-run oil company.... Dire conditions in Venezuela are likely to get even worse in 2019. The International Monetary Fund estimated that the Venezuelan economy shrank by 18% in 2018, and expects a further contraction by 5% in 2019. Hyperinflation, estimated at 1.37 million percent in 2018, could reach 10 million percent for 2019.



~~~~~~
the wealth of Russia, China and Turkey will just be wasted in the socialist sewer of Venezuela. The United States should just watch the money disappear. Actually, the TU-160 a poor reversed engineered US B-1 Lancer. The Russians have seldom built an aircraft that wasn't a US conception first after WWII. The only US planes they haven't 'stolen' from us are the B-52 and the SR-71. The TU-160 bomber should be fodder for an average pilot flying an F16 with a raging hangover could drop these cold-war relics in his sleep!
As long as Maduro is in power with blessings from Communists et al, the more miserable the country and its citizens will be. The internal dissension will be its undoing. All without any energy spent by our country. It would be in our interest to monitor whatever we can, but, no action is required. Russia has a hard time maintaining a portion of its forces. This deployment and the security required will drain on their budget. Obviously the Pentagon has to account for all enemy deployments and have plans ready to interdict the assets during war.
The U.S., like most nations in the West, are in debt well above our heads and have gained little to nothing from offering better deals to third world nations run by lunatics. While we could and should develop a better relationship with Russia, this crazy partisan game in Washington has doomed that.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela. And Why the U.S. Is So Angry About it​


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-so-angry-about-it/ar-BBQV0FI?ocid=spartanntp...

With all due respect to the authors of the rubric article, scant little information is needed for knowing Russia's presence in Venezuela doesn't portend anything good:
  • Russia is a militarily significant adversary led by a despot having ideologically imperialist designs and who had rather the US and its traditional allies see their geopolitical primacy and world order eroded.
  • The information one obtains by looking at a map.

    world-wall-map.jpg


Truly, why they're there matters not to me. What matters to me is that they don't long remain there.
 
Last edited:

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pompeo's tweets on this event make him out to be a bigger clown than his boss. Pure propaganda.
 

jbi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
410
Reaction score
49
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela. And Why the U.S. Is So Angry About it​



~ Actually, the TU-160 a poor reversed engineered US B-1 Lancer. The Russians have seldom built an aircraft that wasn't a US conception first after WWII.


Incorrect.

The Tu-160 is fairly unique, although it incorporates some elements from the TU-144 supersonic passenger aircraft, itself suspected of utilizing stolen British and French technology from the Concorde program
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Incorrect.

The Tu-160 is fairly unique, although it incorporates some elements from the TU-144 supersonic passenger aircraft, itself suspected of utilizing stolen British and French technology from the Concorde program

The tu-144 was a joke, what was shocking is that the tu-160 has similar design and is among if not the best bomber on earth. That tu-144 was designed by a company that makes bombers instead of using antanov which had experience in passenger aircraft, it was so riddled with problems and to top it off tupelov admitted he had no idea how to build a passenger aircraft, and even begged western countries to help fix it. The really bad part was that the last tu-144 in service was used by the us govt by nasa for atmosphere tests.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela. And Why the U.S. Is So Angry About it​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-so-angry-about-it/ar-BBQV0FI?ocid=spartanntp
When two of Russia’s most modern, nuclear-capable bombers landed in Venezuela earlier this week, American officials quickly took note.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted out a statement calling the move “two corrupt governments squandering public funds, and squelching liberty and freedom while their people suffer.” The angry reaction may well have been the intended purpose, according to experts on Russia and Venezuela.... The Tu-160 bombers were manufactured at the end of the Cold War and are among the most advanced strategic bombers in the world. They are capable of flying at twice the speed of sound and carrying both conventional and nuclear-armed cruise missiles that have a range of more than 3,400 miles. It’s not known whether the Russian bombers were carrying any kind of armament on their visit to Venezuela.... For Venezuela, whose collapsing economy has led to chronic food and medicine shortages, the Russian mission represents a useful cameo on the world stage. President Nicolas Maduro will also be happy of a demonstration to potential opponents in the Venezuelan military that he still has powerful friends in Moscow, Moya-Ocampos said. The United States has imposed sanctions on several top Venezuelan officials, and earlier this year barred Americans from buying Venezuelan debt or debt from the state-run oil company.... Dire conditions in Venezuela are likely to get even worse in 2019. The International Monetary Fund estimated that the Venezuelan economy shrank by 18% in 2018, and expects a further contraction by 5% in 2019. Hyperinflation, estimated at 1.37 million percent in 2018, could reach 10 million percent for 2019.



~~~~~~
the wealth of Russia, China and Turkey will just be wasted in the socialist sewer of Venezuela. The United States should just watch the money disappear. Actually, the TU-160 a poor reversed engineered US B-1 Lancer. The Russians have seldom built an aircraft that wasn't a US conception first after WWII. The only US planes they haven't 'stolen' from us are the B-52 and the SR-71. The TU-160 bomber should be fodder for an average pilot flying an F16 with a raging hangover could drop these cold-war relics in his sleep!
As long as Maduro is in power with blessings from Communists et al, the more miserable the country and its citizens will be. The internal dissension will be its undoing. All without any energy spent by our country. It would be in our interest to monitor whatever we can, but, no action is required. Russia has a hard time maintaining a portion of its forces. This deployment and the security required will drain on their budget. Obviously the Pentagon has to account for all enemy deployments and have plans ready to interdict the assets during war.
The U.S., like most nations in the West, are in debt well above our heads and have gained little to nothing from offering better deals to third world nations run by lunatics. While we could and should develop a better relationship with Russia, this crazy partisan game in Washington has doomed that.

To correct you the tu-160 is not a reversed b1b lancer at all infact the b1b was in design much later than the tu-160, the tu-160 was designed to counter the b1 and b1a which neither hit production and were scrapped by carter, the b1b was done when reagan restarted the b1 project but ended up redigning the whole platform, instead of being a supersonic bomber, it became a semi stealth bomber designed to fly low and slow for bombing runs but still capable of supersonic speed for transit, but no where near b1a levels.


Fyi a f-16 really has no chance of stopping one unless they were attacking it head on instead of from the sides or rear, it's speed is too high making it an extreme challenge for anything but perhaps an f-14(no longer in service) or an f-15 or f-22 with missiles carried by the f-14 with range to chase them down. The tu-22m and the tu-160 exploit the fact few aircraft can catch them and that most air defense systems can not adjust for their speed, similar to how the sr-71 remained invincible to air defenses, it moved faster than missiles could compensate in direction and faster than the aircraft trying to intercept it.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This deathstar Russian bomber scares the daylights out of me. :lamo

Reading certain posts around here I could think Russians are ten feet tall. With shoulders three feet across.

It's the US meantime that is doing 6th Generation Warfare. Russians are well behind and chewing dust, the reason being they can't keep up nor do they have the wherewithall to do it. Same as the USSR couldn't do it. Nineteenth century wasn't a good one for Russia either.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
This deathstar Russian bomber scares the daylights out of me. :lamo

Reading certain posts around here I could think Russians are ten feet tall. With shoulders three feet across.

It's the US meantime that is doing 6th Generation Warfare. Russians are well behind and chewing dust, the reason being they can't keep up nor do they have the wherewithall to do it. Same as the USSR couldn't do it. Nineteenth century wasn't a good one for Russia either.

If you want to keep bringing up sixth gen warfare you might need to use google, as the main user of it is russia, the term itself was originally used by the soviet union right before it's fall, and in practice russia had been using it over a decade before the us govt started using it. If anything it seems to be the other way around on 6gw which a quick google search shows almost every link to russia for 6gw in current and past use.

Fyi 6gw is not a strategy for all out war if you could google that as well, it is a strategy for low intensity warfare involving manipulating air space and time to take out targets in well guarded areas, not something feasible in all out warfare. There is also 4th gen warfare which blurs political and military action and uses proxy forces for battle, coined by the us, which is also not feasible in all out warfare. Both 4gw and 6gw are geared towards weaker states to use low intensity conflict to achieve full military results, they both fail when the countries they are used on have the means to counter it.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If you want to keep bringing up sixth gen warfare you might need to use google, as the main user of it is russia, the term itself was originally used by the soviet union right before it's fall, and in practice russia had been using it over a decade before the us govt started using it. If anything it seems to be the other way around on 6gw which a quick google search shows almost every link to russia for 6gw in current and past use.

Fyi 6gw is not a strategy for all out war if you could google that as well, it is a strategy for low intensity warfare involving manipulating air space and time to take out targets in well guarded areas, not something feasible in all out warfare. There is also 4th gen warfare which blurs political and military action and uses proxy forces for battle, coined by the us, which is also not feasible in all out warfare. Both 4gw and 6gw are geared towards weaker states to use low intensity conflict to achieve full military results, they both fail when the countries they are used on have the means to counter it.


On facts and psychology...


Perceptions matter: Arguably being thought to be dangerous is actually a more powerful geopolitical asset than actually being it. So long as the West believes Russia could surge into Ukraine, escalate in Syria, or even roll into the Baltic states, it inevitably feels a greater pressure to make concessions and invite Vladimir Putin to the table.

No one seems willing to question just how formidable Putin’s new military really is — and he seems to be counting on that.

Ever since he first strode into the Kremlin, at the end of 1999, Vladimir Putin has been pouring money into his military. But he was trying to modernize a military that was in a truly catastrophic state after not just years but decades of underfunding and neglect. It had performed abysmally in the first Chechen War. Draft dodging, embezzlement, and corruption were rife.

Certainly Russia’s military has lifted itself up from this pitiful state, but it’s still very much a work in progress. Today, Russian military might as we know it is halfway between a fact and a psychological warfare operation.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat


Your detailed, specific and explicit reply to every post by everyone about the US armed forces and the Russian armed forces could indicate you are a unique poster in these respects. Let's never mind whether you are right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. Because your specifics on weapons and their systems, land sea and air, are unsurpassed in our posts. Your replies are detailed, thorough, specific, broad and deep in respect of everything anyone mentions or introduces to the threads and topics of the military forum. This is so even if your English may leave something to be desired.

You recommend google yet you exceed google in all respects in your itemized and detailed postings in thread after thread, topic after topic, item upon item for which you have an answer for everything big or little brought forward. Nevermind your every answer is and always pro Russia and denigrating or dismissive of the USA military capabilities and capacity. So it could seem you have your own googlelike sources at your fingertips wither your fingers fly over the keyboard of your computer or telephone or whatever. Your knowledge as presented in every post is encyclopedic indeed. You know everything about everything presented -- and in specific detail. Which makes you a rare bird in these parts. Rare indeed. I was going to tip my hat to you but decided to go this route instead...

...because I myself have always found fascinating the Russian Double Headed Eagle Coat of Arms. It may be that you know it and much better than I or anyone here knows it.

50243346-russian-double-headed-eagle-coat-of-arms-on-the-background-of-th.jpg
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
On facts and psychology...


Perceptions matter: Arguably being thought to be dangerous is actually a more powerful geopolitical asset than actually being it. So long as the West believes Russia could surge into Ukraine, escalate in Syria, or even roll into the Baltic states, it inevitably feels a greater pressure to make concessions and invite Vladimir Putin to the table.

No one seems willing to question just how formidable Putin’s new military really is — and he seems to be counting on that.

Ever since he first strode into the Kremlin, at the end of 1999, Vladimir Putin has been pouring money into his military. But he was trying to modernize a military that was in a truly catastrophic state after not just years but decades of underfunding and neglect. It had performed abysmally in the first Chechen War. Draft dodging, embezzlement, and corruption were rife.

Certainly Russia’s military has lifted itself up from this pitiful state, but it’s still very much a work in progress. Today, Russian military might as we know it is halfway between a fact and a psychological warfare operation.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat


Your detailed, specific and explicit reply to every post by everyone about the US armed forces and the Russian armed forces could indicate you are a unique poster in these respects. Let's never mind whether you are right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. Because your specifics on weapons and their systems, land sea and air, are unsurpassed in our posts. Your replies are detailed, thorough, specific, broad and deep in respect of everything anyone mentions or introduces to the threads and topics of the military forum. This is so even if your English may leave something to be desired.

You recommend google yet you exceed google in all respects in your itemized and detailed postings in thread after thread, topic after topic, item upon item for which you have an answer for everything big or little brought forward. Nevermind your every answer is and always pro Russia and denigrating or dismissive of the USA military capabilities and capacity. So it could seem you have your own googlelike sources at your fingertips wither your fingers fly over the keyboard of your computer or telephone or whatever. Your knowledge as presented in every post is encyclopedic indeed. You know everything about everything presented -- and in specific detail. Which makes you a rare bird in these parts. Rare indeed. I was going to tip my hat to you but decided to go this route instead...

...because I myself have always found fascinating the Russian Double Headed Eagle Coat of Arms. It may be that you know it and much better than I or anyone here knows it.

50243346-russian-double-headed-eagle-coat-of-arms-on-the-background-of-th.jpg

So deflection it is, could not offer a real rebuttal so you went into some long tirade running around the topic, good for you.

FYi 6gw is most easily described by what everyone calls now hybrid warfare or gerasimov doctrine, which is nothing new, but rather a formal doctrine combining 4th gen warfare and 6th gen warfare aka the hybrid warfare term.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So deflection it is, could not offer a real rebuttal so you went into some long tirade running around the topic, good for you.

FYi 6gw is most easily described by what everyone calls now hybrid warfare or gerasimov doctrine, which is nothing new, but rather a formal doctrine combining 4th gen warfare and 6th gen warfare aka the hybrid warfare term.

We recall that during the Cold War the Russians and Putin in the KGB of the USSR always claimed they invented it first. Made it first. Came up with it first. :lamo I see times over there haven't changed in the least bit now that we're back to state to state confrontations and brinkmanship. Maybe you remember it and recognize the change, maybe not. I know I do recognize it here and now on both counts.

Big difference is now we have the www and internet to include networks. Changes everything completely it does. We saw it in the election in USA in 2016. Facebook. Twitter. And more. Much more. The whole nine yards from Russia to here.

Now you guys can post in cyberspace to present Russia as superior and the USA as inferior; Russia as the original and USA as the fake -- the fake in everything concerning everything. This is my argument theze dayze. And about you, although while I was in my one tour of military service long ago I was not in intelligence, espionage, sabotage. I rather took an oath to the Constitution. It's a lifetime oath unless specifically renounced. I affirmed the oath and have confirmed it many times since. For keeps.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Valery Gerasimov mentioned in scrolling by the poster beerftw is a central figure in Russian military policy and doctrines so he merits discussion if we'd like. Gerasimov was chief of General Staff and originator of the Gerasimov Doctrine as Pentagon calls it. That is, prepare for state to state conventional war. Indeed the poster himself is a caviar and champagne man who hasn't nursed beer with pretzels for a long time if ever.

So for the moment we'd need to look at Maj. Gen Vladimir Slipchenko who the poster also knows well and the USMC Col. Thomas X Hammes. As the poster knows, Slipchenko and Hammes GW definitions have been synthesized to separate 4GW, 5GW, 6GW. It was a give and take sorting out done by others, namely the US Army War College.

When Slipchenko coined the term Sixth Generation Warfare he coined a term rather than created an existing thing, i.e., reinvent the wheel. Slipchenko was in fact describing and focusing on what Israel did in 1981, i.e., create a radar path in Iraq to blast the nuclear plant under construction at Osirak and return otherwise unnoticed and unscathed. This was during the Iraq-Iran war when incoming aircraft were always spotted on the combatants radars.

Slipchenko btw spoke openly of something not yet given a nomenclature and that no one wants to mention publicly, Weather Warfare which Pentagon has been pursuing informally and in silence for a long time. Slipchenko said it's 7GW but others disagree. I agree. Slipchenko lost a major point to his own taxonomy though of GW historically to the present. He was dismissed by others in his belief sixth generation warfare would replace fifth generation warfare which he identified as thermonuclear war. 5GW does indeed have nothing about it that includes nuclear war which Slipchenko saw anyway as unthinkable/suicidal.

The present generation of US and Russian generals are btw implementing these doctrinal definitions and programs of upgrade and modernization going forward. Few among 'em of either country are at the conceptional level of Slipchenko in Russia and Col. Hammes in USA. As to Gerasimov, he was more of an analyst of events and developments both civilian and military. His counterpart in USA would be the retired former chairman of Joint Chiefs, the Army Gen. Martin Dempsey.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
We recall that during the Cold War the Russians and Putin in the KGB of the USSR always claimed they invented it first. Made it first. Came up with it first. :lamo I see times over there haven't changed in the least bit now that we're back to state to state confrontations and brinkmanship. Maybe you remember it and recognize the change, maybe not. I know I do recognize it here and now on both counts.

Big difference is now we have the www and internet to include networks. Changes everything completely it does. We saw it in the election in USA in 2016. Facebook. Twitter. And more. Much more. The whole nine yards from Russia to here.

Now you guys can post in cyberspace to present Russia as superior and the USA as inferior; Russia as the original and USA as the fake -- the fake in everything concerning everything. This is my argument theze dayze. And about you, although while I was in my one tour of military service long ago I was not in intelligence, espionage, sabotage. I rather took an oath to the Constitution. It's a lifetime oath unless specifically renounced. I affirmed the oath and have confirmed it many times since. For keeps.

Well in the post after this I see you used google, which shown isrel used what is 6gw before it was ever a doctrine, good for you actually researching before you talk. Now on this post you spouted a bunch of nonsense, if you skipped this post and just responed with the one below you may have saved a little more face.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well in the post after this I see you used google, which shown isrel used what is 6gw before it was ever a doctrine, good for you actually researching before you talk. Now on this post you spouted a bunch of nonsense, if you skipped this post and just responed with the one below you may have saved a little more face.

I appreciate your expressing concern about my face figuratively speaking of course. I'd suggest you not worry about it because my face is holding up well thx anyway. Excellently in fact both figuratively and literally. Yours however has been exposed to the elements of fact and truth which has revealed your face definitively and conclusively, i.e., a Russian official military strategic analyst. Indeed my post dismantled your post #8 in which you revived the old Cold War joke about the USSR running up the hammer and sickle in everything, i.e., that Russia invented it first, had it first, did it first and best and, I would add, wuz the wave of the future. Self proclaimed of course. Yet I needn't remind you Soviet Russia dropped dead of its own anemia.

You've missed by too much a major Pentagon policy realignment in respect of what it calls the Gerasimov Doctrine. Pentagon has been moving away for several years now from their focus on Gerasimov's hybrid warfare policies. The hybrid stuff was anyway only a part of what Gerasimov was doing with Russian armed forces and military doctrine. Pentagon is now focused on Gerasimov's points about conventional state to state warfare. Pentagon is doing this because the Russian General Staff is doing exactly that. We see this currently in relation to the Azov Sea and the Russian conventional buildup at the Ukraine border, for instance. You're not doing that only for show.

From the Journal of the US Army War College in 2016 and which now dominates Pentagon military policy toward Russia...

The war in Ukraine has refocused Western attention on
Russia and its ability to project power, particularly in terms of “hy
brid warfare” through the so-called Gerasimov Doctrine. At the
same time, Russian military thinking—and actions—are rapidly
evolving. This article reflects on the increasingly prominent role of
conventional force, including the use of high intensity firepower, in
Russian war fighting capabilities, and advocates the need for a shift
in our conceptualization of Russian actions from hybrid warfare to
state mobilization.


http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Winter_2015-16/9_Monaghan.pdf


US Army Chief Gen. Mark Milley has invested his past four years armoring up agile infantry brigades with armor made of new composites and he's already doubled heavy weapons range and firepower while introducing new individual weapons* that revolutionize firepower accuracy, lethality, intensity. USMC has reinvented its squad tactics and it has adopted the new individual lethal weapons to go with its upgraded and daring maneuver warfare. Intermediate main battle tanks are in process that have the significant weight and muscle while being agile and light enough to cross common bridges with dispersed and rapidly advancing forces (which is an Abrams limitation).

In short Gerasimov's hybrid warfare for the Russian Army is on its deathbed while as his points about state to state conventional war are in full application by the general staff over there. While contemporary conventional war includes cyber and EW and so on the bottom line is that Russia has been on the periphery of 6GW which is where it remains. You don't have the budget or the broad scope of resources for it while your expeditionary capacity is small -- and this is killing you. Russian forces are formidable so don't get me wrong. They are strong and they are fierce. The question is how much and for how long. Not very. You don't have enough of what you must have which is sustainability. Nor can you marshal it. And you have a huge area to defend the land border alone being 12,000 miles along 16 countries from the Don to the Pacific.



*https://www.debatepolitics.com/mili...ptics-make-soldiers-marines-lot-deadlier.html
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I appreciate your expressing concern about my face figuratively speaking of course. I'd suggest you not worry about it because my face is holding up well thx anyway. Excellently in fact both figuratively and literally. Yours however has been exposed to the elements of fact and truth which has revealed your face definitively and conclusively, i.e., a Russian official military strategic analyst. Indeed my post dismantled your post #8 in which you revived the old Cold War joke about the USSR running up the hammer and sickle in everything, i.e., that Russia invented it first, had it first, did it first and best and, I would add, wuz the wave of the future. Self proclaimed of course. Yet I needn't remind you Soviet Russia dropped dead of its own anemia.

You've missed by too much a major Pentagon policy realignment in respect of what it calls the Gerasimov Doctrine. Pentagon has been moving away for several years now from their focus on Gerasimov's hybrid warfare policies. The hybrid stuff was anyway only a part of what Gerasimov was doing with Russian armed forces and military doctrine. Pentagon is now focused on Gerasimov's points about conventional state to state warfare. Pentagon is doing this because the Russian General Staff is doing exactly that. We see this currently in relation to the Azov Sea and the Russian conventional buildup at the Ukraine border, for instance. You're not doing that only for show.

From the Journal of the US Army War College in 2016 and which now dominates Pentagon military policy toward Russia...

The war in Ukraine has refocused Western attention on
Russia and its ability to project power, particularly in terms of “hy
brid warfare” through the so-called Gerasimov Doctrine. At the
same time, Russian military thinking—and actions—are rapidly
evolving. This article reflects on the increasingly prominent role of
conventional force, including the use of high intensity firepower, in
Russian war fighting capabilities, and advocates the need for a shift
in our conceptualization of Russian actions from hybrid warfare to
state mobilization.


http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Winter_2015-16/9_Monaghan.pdf


US Army Chief Gen. Mark Milley has invested his past four years armoring up agile infantry brigades with armor made of new composites and he's already doubled heavy weapons range and firepower while introducing new individual weapons* that revolutionize firepower accuracy, lethality, intensity. USMC has reinvented its squad tactics and it has adopted the new individual lethal weapons to go with its upgraded and daring maneuver warfare. Intermediate main battle tanks are in process that have the significant weight and muscle while being agile and light enough to cross common bridges with dispersed and rapidly advancing forces (which is an Abrams limitation).

In short Gerasimov's hybrid warfare for the Russian Army is on its deathbed while as his points about state to state conventional war are in full application by the general staff over there. While contemporary conventional war includes cyber and EW and so on the bottom line is that Russia has been on the periphery of 6GW which is where it remains. You don't have the budget or the broad scope of resources for it while your expeditionary capacity is small -- and this is killing you. Russian forces are formidable so don't get me wrong. They are strong and they are fierce. The question is how much and for how long. Not very. You don't have enough of what you must have which is sustainability. Nor can you marshal it. And you have a huge area to defend the land border alone being 12,000 miles along 16 countries from the Don to the Pacific.



*https://www.debatepolitics.com/mili...ptics-make-soldiers-marines-lot-deadlier.html

Gerasimovs doctrin was nothing more than a hybrid between 2 older doctrines, anyone can figure that out.

Oh so you state the pentagon is moving towards state vs state doctrine, so your 6gw flew out the window really fast didn't it? The last state to state doctrine was 3rd gen warfare created in ww2, states to this day still use it to fight wars directly against other states, to this day no one has named a newer doctrine for such, even though doctrines themselves change as do tactics the generational style is still 3gw, so all your 6gw talk was nonsense in regards to russia and china, and now you even wish to play the runaround to avoid admitting you were wrong.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Gerasimovs doctrin was nothing more than a hybrid between 2 older doctrines, anyone can figure that out.

Oh so you state the pentagon is moving towards state vs state doctrine, so your 6gw flew out the window really fast didn't it? The last state to state doctrine was 3rd gen warfare created in ww2, states to this day still use it to fight wars directly against other states, to this day no one has named a newer doctrine for such, even though doctrines themselves change as do tactics the generational style is still 3gw, so all your 6gw talk was nonsense in regards to russia and china, and now you even wish to play the runaround to avoid admitting you were wrong.



What you call "the runaround" is called strategy. So we see now that I've called you out that strategy is your weak point. A hole in your head as it were because you have only a vague idea of what I'm saying here. While you are fluent in Russian reactive armor and tanks to include their treadwheels, and prolific in discussing differences in aircraft and their tail length etc etc you're less than stellar when it comes to strategy.

cropped-1920x1080_books-library-HD-Wallpaper3.jpg


The Taxonomy of Generational Warfare through the ages:

1GW: Massed manpower – a battle of attrition, face to face, recorded for example in the Bible
2GW: Massed firepower – where fixed fortifications have the advantage over 1GW techniques as initially in the American Civil War then on a large scale in WW I
3GW: Maneuver warfare – where space is replaced by time, neutralizing 2GW techniques as in WW II
4GW: Insurgency and terrorism – low-intensity protracted warfare that neutralizes 3GW techniques as in Vietnam; in Afghanistan where the Russian Soviet forces failed and where US forces have been engaged 17 years;
5GW: Non-contact warfare – precision guided weapons used to overcome 4GW techniques as in drones with hellfire missiles.

What is 6GW, our future generation of warfare? The answer is in the transition from 2GW to 3GW: manipulation of space and time. Napoleon once said, “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the mind.” Napoleon had no idea that we would have intelligence in silicon and software today, but his statement still rings true.

Warfare Evolution Blog: Next generation warfare part 2 - Military Embedded Systems


6GW is delivered via the Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy which you're hesitant to discuss. Hiding from the discussion perhaps.

So I'll quote your own star scholar-general whom you reference often, Gen. Valerey Gerasimov recently chief of Russian armed forces general staff, speaking of the USA Global Strike capacity and capability:

"As you know, the United States has already developed and implemented the concept of rapid global strike. The US military is calculated to achieve the ability to, in a few hours, deploy troops to defeat enemy targets at any point [place] of the globe. It is envisaged [as] the introduction of a promising form of warfare – of global integrated operations. It proposes the [introduction] to any region of forces capable of joint action to defeat the enemy in a variety of operating environments. According to the [initiators], this should be a kind of blitzkrieg of the twenty-first century."

The plain and simple translation is that the US armed forces integrated Global Rapid Strike capability has the Russian general staff scared and scrambling. US developed and has a global strike blitzkrieg armed force that can show up anywhere, anytime.



More to GW itself however your late Gen. Slipchenko dabbled in a proposed 7th Generation Warfare, saying then we were on the cusp already. That is, what we often call "Weather Warfare." Y'know, generate an earthquake in the enemy's homeland; or a drought, a vicious typhoon or a once a millennium blizzard etc. Some prefer to call it Environmental Warfare. Others say environmental warfare is nothing new, i.e., undeserving of a special category of GW: a 7th one. They cite Stalin's Scorched Earth policy as an instance of EVW and that the skeptics can scope deep into the history of war to find many instances of it.

Gen. Publius Cippio for instance buried Carthage in salt after he'd conquered the spent Hannibal and sent him scrambling from the fated city to wander for the rest of his miserable dayze -- until the Romans tracked him down finally and killed him. My own view is that EVW is radically different from setting the place ablaze or burying an enemy's capital in salt; flooding the countryside or the city etc. Indeed creating an earthquake or a massive blizzard is quite another dimension of warfare from the tossing of a torch or blowing a dam. Environmental Warfare does indeed merit its own and separate category of war -- 7GW. So we're on it and we've been on it for several decades already, quietly.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
85,008
Reaction score
16,724
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What you call "the runaround" is called strategy. So we see now that I've called you out that strategy is your weak point. A hole in your head as it were because you have only a vague idea of what I'm saying here. While you are fluent in Russian reactive armor and tanks to include their treadwheels, and prolific in discussing differences in aircraft and their tail length etc etc you're less than stellar when it comes to strategy.

The Taxonomy of Generational Warfare through the ages:

1GW: Massed manpower – a battle of attrition, face to face, recorded for example in the Bible
2GW: Massed firepower – where fixed fortifications have the advantage over 1GW techniques as initially in the American Civil War then on a large scale in WW I
3GW: Maneuver warfare – where space is replaced by time, neutralizing 2GW techniques as in WW II
4GW: Insurgency and terrorism – low-intensity protracted warfare that neutralizes 3GW techniques as in Vietnam; in Afghanistan where the Russian Soviet forces failed and where US forces have been engaged 17 years;
5GW: Non-contact warfare – precision guided weapons used to overcome 4GW techniques as in drones with hellfire missiles.

What is 6GW, our future generation of warfare? The answer is in the transition from 2GW to 3GW: manipulation of space and time. Napoleon once said, “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the mind.” Napoleon had no idea that we would have intelligence in silicon and software today, but his statement still rings true.

Warfare Evolution Blog: Next generation warfare part 2 - Military Embedded Systems


6GW is delivered via the Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy which you're hesitant to discuss. Hiding from the discussion perhaps.

So I'll quote your own star scholar-general whom you reference often, Gen. Valerey Gerasimov recently chief of Russian armed forces general staff, speaking of the USA Global Strike capacity and capability:

"As you know, the United States has already developed and implemented the concept of rapid global strike. The US military is calculated to achieve the ability to, in a few hours, deploy troops to defeat enemy targets at any point [place] of the globe. It is envisaged [as] the introduction of a promising form of warfare – of global integrated operations. It proposes the [introduction] to any region of forces capable of joint action to defeat the enemy in a variety of operating environments. According to the [initiators], this should be a kind of blitzkrieg of the twenty-first century."

The plain and simple translation is that the US armed forces integrated Global Rapid Strike capability has the Russian general staff scared and scrambling. US developed and has a global strike blitzkrieg armed force that can show up anywhere, anytime.



More to GW itself however your late Gen. Slipchenko dabbled in a proposed 7th Generation Warfare, saying then we were on the cusp already. That is, what we often call "Weather Warfare." Y'know, generate an earthquake in the enemy's homeland; or a drought, a vicious typhoon or a once a millennium blizzard etc. Some prefer to call it Environmental Warfare. Others say environmental warfare is nothing new, i.e., undeserving of a special category of GW: a 7th one. They cite Stalin's Scorched Earth policy as an instance of EVW and that the skeptics can scope deep into the history of war to find many instances of it.

Gen. Publius Cippio for instance buried Carthage in salt after he'd conquered the spent Hannibal and sent him scrambling from the fated city to wander for the rest of his miserable dayze -- until the Romans tracked him down finally and killed him. My own view is that EVW is radically different from setting the place ablaze or burying an enemy's capital in salt; flooding the countryside or the city etc. Indeed creating an earthquake or a massive blizzard is quite another dimension of warfare from the tossing of a torch or blowing a dam. Environmental Warfare does indeed merit its own and separate category of war -- 7GW. So we're on it and we've been on it for several decades already, quietly.

A simple "I was wrong" would suffice.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
85,008
Reaction score
16,724
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So deflection it is, could not offer a real rebuttal so you went into some long tirade running around the topic, good for you.

FYi 6gw is most easily described by what everyone calls now hybrid warfare or gerasimov doctrine, which is nothing new, but rather a formal doctrine combining 4th gen warfare and 6th gen warfare aka the hybrid warfare term.

Tangmo does that a lot. And he adds pretty pictures for additional padding. He is of the "If I type a lot maybe they wont see all the errors" mentality.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We'll have to keep a close eye out for the possibility Putin and Maduro might try to smuggle nuclear bombs into Venezuela for the nuclear capable Russian bombers. Do it whole or in parts, the latter being more likely of course if any such thing were planned or occurred eventually. If the slimy couple might do that we could well have a redux of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in Venezuela as the Russian Nuclear Armed Bomber Crisis of Caracas, 2019.

Fortunately we survived the Cuba Crisis of 1962 so there still are people around to recall the time we came within moments of MAD becoming real. And it went on for two weeks before each side reached out to stop it. Who can say about a redux of it if there were nuclear armed bombers in Venezuela and Donald Trump as Potus while his master Vladimir Putin sits in Moscow.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Tangmo does that a lot. And he adds pretty pictures for additional padding. He is of the "If I type a lot maybe they wont see all the errors" mentality.

I do not think he was happy I pointed out 6gw as he keeps pushing was a russian doctrine before anyone else made it a doctrine, and that it really had no bearing on war between states, as it was a warfare for low intensity conflicts, from there he pretty much went on deflection.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,753
Reaction score
5,450
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
What you call "the runaround" is called strategy. So we see now that I've called you out that strategy is your weak point. A hole in your head as it were because you have only a vague idea of what I'm saying here. While you are fluent in Russian reactive armor and tanks to include their treadwheels, and prolific in discussing differences in aircraft and their tail length etc etc you're less than stellar when it comes to strategy.

cropped-1920x1080_books-library-HD-Wallpaper3.jpg


The Taxonomy of Generational Warfare through the ages:

1GW: Massed manpower – a battle of attrition, face to face, recorded for example in the Bible
2GW: Massed firepower – where fixed fortifications have the advantage over 1GW techniques as initially in the American Civil War then on a large scale in WW I
3GW: Maneuver warfare – where space is replaced by time, neutralizing 2GW techniques as in WW II
4GW: Insurgency and terrorism – low-intensity protracted warfare that neutralizes 3GW techniques as in Vietnam; in Afghanistan where the Russian Soviet forces failed and where US forces have been engaged 17 years;
5GW: Non-contact warfare – precision guided weapons used to overcome 4GW techniques as in drones with hellfire missiles.

What is 6GW, our future generation of warfare? The answer is in the transition from 2GW to 3GW: manipulation of space and time. Napoleon once said, “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the mind.” Napoleon had no idea that we would have intelligence in silicon and software today, but his statement still rings true.

Warfare Evolution Blog: Next generation warfare part 2 - Military Embedded Systems


6GW is delivered via the Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy which you're hesitant to discuss. Hiding from the discussion perhaps.

So I'll quote your own star scholar-general whom you reference often, Gen. Valerey Gerasimov recently chief of Russian armed forces general staff, speaking of the USA Global Strike capacity and capability:

"

The plain and simple translation is that the US armed forces integrated Global Rapid Strike capability has the Russian general staff scared and scrambling. US developed and has a global strike blitzkrieg armed force that can show up anywhere, anytime.



More to GW itself however your late Gen. Slipchenko dabbled in a proposed 7th Generation Warfare, saying then we were on the cusp already. That is, what we often call "Weather Warfare." Y'know, generate an earthquake in the enemy's homeland; or a drought, a vicious typhoon or a once a millennium blizzard etc. Some prefer to call it Environmental Warfare. Others say environmental warfare is nothing new, i.e., undeserving of a special category of GW: a 7th one. They cite Stalin's Scorched Earth policy as an instance of EVW and that the skeptics can scope deep into the history of war to find many instances of it.

Gen. Publius Cippio for instance buried Carthage in salt after he'd conquered the spent Hannibal and sent him scrambling from the fated city to wander for the rest of his miserable dayze -- until the Romans tracked him down finally and killed him. My own view is that EVW is radically different from setting the place ablaze or burying an enemy's capital in salt; flooding the countryside or the city etc. Indeed creating an earthquake or a massive blizzard is quite another dimension of warfare from the tossing of a torch or blowing a dam. Environmental Warfare does indeed merit its own and separate category of war -- 7GW. So we're on it and we've been on it for several decades already, quietly.

You should look a little closer towards what each gen of warfare is, 4 is proxy war, 5 is non contact war in it's simplest an information war where people are turned against their own govt's, in information wars lies are not the only means, telling the truth counts so long as it unravels a regime without needing to be on ground or arming anyone.

6gw is not the next direction for us armed forces unless they plan to avoid state to state conflict altogether, you were already corrected on this, and now plan to double down on it. 6gw exploits air time and space to perform precision strikes in low intensity conflicts, it is not nor has ever been a doctrine to combat competent state actors and has never been pushed as being such by anyone but you.

And quit trying to deflect with gerasimov, I pointed him out over the generations of war to point out why his style is called hybrid warfare and you seem to latch to that to perpetuate a red herring in a means to admit your own argument was wrong from the getgo.
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You should look a little closer towards what each gen of warfare is, 4 is proxy war, 5 is non contact war in it's simplest an information war where people are turned against their own govt's, in information wars lies are not the only means, telling the truth counts so long as it unravels a regime without needing to be on ground or arming anyone.

6gw is not the next direction for us armed forces unless they plan to avoid state to state conflict altogether, you were already corrected on this, and now plan to double down on it. 6gw exploits air time and space to perform precision strikes in low intensity conflicts, it is not nor has ever been a doctrine to combat competent state actors and has never been pushed as being such by anyone but you.

And quit trying to deflect with gerasimov, I pointed him out over the generations of war to point out why his style is called hybrid warfare and you seem to latch to that to perpetuate a red herring in a means to admit your own argument was wrong from the getgo.


Putin's buildup of standard regular conventional forces at the Ukraine border is, well, the standard regular conventional warfare everyone knows and recognizes as such. It's 3GW. In contrast Putin's "little green men" in Crimea several years ago were the brainchild of Gerasimov, as were Putin's "volunteers" of the regular Russian armed forces in the Donbass. While what's called hybrid warfare by both the Pentagon and the Kremlin continues, its heydays have passed.

defense-large.jpg

Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, left, and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov, second right, watch a military exercise at a training ground at the Luzhsky Range. Sept, 2017.


We have since entered the more familiar sphere of state to state confrontation directly and head on. Putin's army and air forces are set to roll over the border into Ukraine much in the same way Hitler's armies and luftwaffe rolled over the Soviet border into, onto and above Russian soil. Ukraine armed forces are prepared to respond in defense of the country and against the foreign invasion. This is indeed stuff that is known and familiar. It's a return to 3GW as the dominant mode of warfare in Europe/Eurasia. Russia will employ 5GW and some limited 6GW in any such invasion, as the link below.

In March Gen. Gerasimov spoke to members of the Russian Military Academy of the General Staff. Here's from a piece about it. Gerasimov spoke of the high tech Russian armed forces in state to state conflict as if everything were already in place which it is not.



Sam Bendett, a research analyst at the US Center for Naval Analyses, says the moves signal that the Russian military is trying to push fighting further away from its borders, thus growing the area to which it can deny access, or at least appear to do so. “Russia’s current force composition is aiming at short-range, short-duration conflict where its forces can overwhelm the adversary close to Russian borders. The new technology Gerasimov discusses would allow Russia to conduct deep-strikes within enemy territory, thus ‘pushing’ the actual fighting far from Russian borders and Russian vulnerability to Western precision-guided weapons,” he said.


“The objects of the economy and the state administration of the enemy will be subject to immediate destruction; in addition to the traditional spheres of armed struggle, the information sphere and space will be actively involved,” [Gerasimov] told the audience.

Gerasimov stated that potential adversary’s economic targets, as well as government’s ability to govern, will be fair game. Striking deep into enemy territory can be accomplished more easily by unmanned systems—whether armed with EW, various sensors or strike components … All this also depends on the Russian military-industrial complex’s ability to properly marshal the needed resources in an organized fashion in order to field this technology.”

One other explanation for the tough talk: Russia is hardly an even match for the United States in terms of either military spending or capability. The recently announced $61 billion increase in the U.S. military budget over last year’s budget (bringing the total to $700 billion) is greater than the entire Russian military budget, which sits around $46 billion. That number represents about 2.86 percent of Russian GDP. In December, Putin said that the government would “reduce” future expenditures.


https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...lays-out-kremlins-high-tech-war-plans/147051/


Not used to being challenged here eh. And clarified besides.
 
Last edited:

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
85,008
Reaction score
16,724
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I do not think he was happy I pointed out 6gw as he keeps pushing was a russian doctrine before anyone else made it a doctrine, and that it really had no bearing on war between states, as it was a warfare for low intensity conflicts, from there he pretty much went on deflection.

You called it... Prompting the "Tangmo Shuffle".
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
85,008
Reaction score
16,724
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Putin's buildup of standard regular conventional forces at the Ukraine border is, well, the standard regular conventional warfare everyone knows and recognizes as such. It's 3GW. In contrast Putin's "little green men" in Crimea several years ago were the brainchild of Gerasimov, as were Putin's "volunteers" of the regular Russian armed forces in the Donbass. While what's called hybrid warfare by both the Pentagon and the Kremlin continues, its heydays have passed.

defense-large.jpg

Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, left, and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov, second right, watch a military exercise at a training ground at the Luzhsky Range. Sept, 2017.


We have since entered the more familiar sphere of state to state confrontation directly and head on. Putin's army and air forces are set to roll over the border into Ukraine much in the same way Hitler's armies and luftwaffe rolled over the Soviet border into, onto and above Russian soil. Ukraine armed forces are prepared to respond in defense of the country and against the foreign invasion. This is indeed stuff that is known and familiar. It's a return to 3GW as the dominant mode of warfare in Europe/Eurasia. Russia will employ 5GW and some limited 6GW in any such invasion, as the link below.

In March Gen. Gerasimov spoke to members of the Russian Military Academy of the General Staff. Here's from a piece about it. Gerasimov spoke of the high tech Russian armed forces in state to state conflict as if everything were already in place which it is not.



Sam Bendett, a research analyst at the US Center for Naval Analyses, says the moves signal that the Russian military is trying to push fighting further away from its borders, thus growing the area to which it can deny access, or at least appear to do so. “Russia’s current force composition is aiming at short-range, short-duration conflict where its forces can overwhelm the adversary close to Russian borders. The new technology Gerasimov discusses would allow Russia to conduct deep-strikes within enemy territory, thus ‘pushing’ the actual fighting far from Russian borders and Russian vulnerability to Western precision-guided weapons,” he said.


“The objects of the economy and the state administration of the enemy will be subject to immediate destruction; in addition to the traditional spheres of armed struggle, the information sphere and space will be actively involved,” [Gerasimov] told the audience.

Gerasimov stated that potential adversary’s economic targets, as well as government’s ability to govern, will be fair game. Striking deep into enemy territory can be accomplished more easily by unmanned systems—whether armed with EW, various sensors or strike components … All this also depends on the Russian military-industrial complex’s ability to properly marshal the needed resources in an organized fashion in order to field this technology.”

One other explanation for the tough talk: Russia is hardly an even match for the United States in terms of either military spending or capability. The recently announced $61 billion increase in the U.S. military budget over last year’s budget (bringing the total to $700 billion) is greater than the entire Russian military budget, which sits around $46 billion. That number represents about 2.86 percent of Russian GDP. In December, Putin said that the government would “reduce” future expenditures.


https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...lays-out-kremlins-high-tech-war-plans/147051/


Not used to being challenged here eh. And clarified besides.

Large post heavy on the C&P with irrelevant pictures and some Tangmo commentary (usually incorrect) thrown in...
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
17,593
Reaction score
3,429
Location
VPN @ PRC/HKG/SPORE/JPN/LA/UK/CANADA/ EU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
When Slipchenko coined the term Sixth Generation Warfare he coined a term rather than created an existing thing, i.e., reinvented the wheel. Slipchenko was in fact describing and focusing on what Israel did in 1981, i.e., create a radar path in Iraq to blast the nuclear plant under construction at Osirak and return otherwise unnoticed and unscathed. This was during the Iraq-Iran war when incoming aircraft were always spotted on the combatants radars. The Iran-Iraq war was in fact more the 2GW defensive fortifications of WW I than the swift maneuver warfare of WW II which itself was 3GW. Moreover nowhere in your alleged discussion did I say 6GW was going to defeat Russia or the US in a full scale war.


Rather I cited this by Gerasimov speaking of the USA Global Strike capacity and capability:

"As you know, the United States has already developed and implemented the concept of rapid global strike. The US military is calculated to achieve the ability to, in a few hours, deploy troops to defeat enemy targets at any point of the globe. It is envisaged [as] the introduction of a promising form of warfare – of global integrated operations. It proposes the [introduction] to any region of forces capable of joint action to defeat the enemy in a variety of operating environments. According to the [commanders], this should be a kind of blitzkrieg of the twenty-first century."

The plain and simple translation is that the US armed forces integrated, Global Rapid Strike capability has the Russian general staff scared and scrambling. US developed and has a global strike "blitzkrieg" armed force that can show up anywhere, anytime and defeat anyone.




Gerasimov's hybrid warfare was this:

When members of the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade in Crimea [Marines] took off their unit patches and moved out to seize key roads on the peninsula in February 2014, they did not become “hybrid warriors.” They were merely naval infantry without unit patches on. Is there anything hybrid about using special forces, with the support of elite infantry, to prepare the battlespace for a conventional invasion? This is standard practice for military forces around the world, to include those of the United States. If a Russian missile cruiser lowers its ensign, does it become a hybrid cruiser about to engage in a new form of naval hybrid warfare? Of course not. There is simply not much hybrid war to be found in the case of Crimea.

In late February and early March of 2014, Russia, together with vested Ukrainian oligarchs in the eastern regions, leveraged their influence to mobilize protests and advance those on the fringe of Ukraine’s politics. Throughout the conflict, Moscow sought to scare Ukraine’s government into agreeing to a federalization scheme, that would neuter its ability to move the country in a more Western direction, and result in de facto political partition of Ukraine along regional divisions. The entire affair was cheap political warfare and done in a hurry.

It was only at the end of May, when irregular warfare had run into too much resistance from Ukraine’s volunteer battalions and armed forces, that we began to see Russia backing into a hybridized approach. By August 24, the hybrid approach had demonstrably failed in the vein of previous efforts. Moscow traded it in for a conventional invasion by regular Russian units, which it had sought to avoid. The invasion in August of 2014 marked the transition to conventional war as the deciding approach, but with limited political and territorial objectives.


https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/russian-hybrid-warfare-and-other-dark-arts/


You're missing a lot in your already failed campaign to elevate Russia and leverage the US into retreat.
 
Top Bottom