More like 5 foot-nine

EUROPE: "Russia's armed forces: advancing, blindly; A more aggressive Russian army is still no match for NATO, but is strong enough to scare some neighbors," The Economist, 20 September 2008.

WORLD NEWS: "Moscow Will Boost Defense Spending to $50 Billion: Conflict in Georgia Exposed Deficiencies Of Aging Arsenal," by Andrew Osborn, Wall Street Journal, 20-21 September 2008.

WORLD NEWS: "U.S. Engages Russia While Intensifying Rhetoric: Administration Keeps Options Open On Nuclear Pact," by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 23 September 2008.

ARTICLE: "Russia Strikes Oil Deal With Chavez and Plans Modernization Of Military," by Ellen Barry, New York Times, 27 September 2008.

ARTICLE: "Long Scourge of Somali Seas, Pirates Provoke World Powers," by Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times, 27 September 2008.

A sensible read on Putin (see the always clear-sighted C.J. Chivers in the October Esquire profile) is hard to come by nowadays, but a sober analysis of Russia's generally unimpressive military performance in Georgia is even more required. The top Economist piece delivers this nicely:

The Russians lost their most senior commander in the field because, by their own accounts, they did not know where the Georgian units were. Russian forces lacked surveillance drones and night-vision equipment. Radios worked poorly, and commanders resorted to using mobile phones. Troops barely co-ordinated with the air force, which lost several jets (among them a Tu-22 strategic bomber) and dropped mostly old "dumb" bombs rather than modern smart ones. The wonder is how the Russians routed the Georgians so swiftly.

Obviously, when rebranding your military, you want to pick a weak opponent, like say Spain in the 1890s.

But it's hard to improve your military when one-third of your defense budget is embezzled or misspent.

When Russia sends its big naval platforms abroad, a tug usually accompanies.

But some bright spots: specifically a slow shift to a professional, non-conscript force. Then again, it was the pros who invaded Georgia. But when most of your weapons date back to the 1960s and 70s, such is war.

So big surprise, Moscow will boost defense spending. Not exactly our $700 billion, as the "huge" uptick increases Russia's defense budget to a whopping $50B.

Taking to friends at the Center for Naval Analysis, the Russian tendency to build instantly old platforms persists.

As respected analyst Pavel Felgenhauer puts it, "Defense spending has multiplied since 2000 . . . but the results have been really meager."

To our government/military's strategic credit, we continue to engage Russia over nukes and other security cooperation—very quietly:

American diplomats say engagement with Russia is critical because its involvement is central to any efforts to combat weapons proliferation and terrorism. The administration has rebuffed calls from politicians, including Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, to expel Moscow from the Group of Eight forum of leading nations.

So no, I won't be getting all jacked over the Chavez play, which I find more pathetic than threatening—Chavez's brag that about a "colossus being born" notwithstanding.

Still, you must acknowledge, as expert Aleksandr Golts argues, that "Russia wants to behave as a great power" even as "the existing Russian armed forces are only a shadow of the Soviet ones."

Meanwhile, we can thank those Somali pirates for reminding us of common global security interests. PIRATES! Running the world again! Arrrrrgh!

Get me Johnny Depp on the phone!

Comments

[Mike Frager]

Ya know, maybe we should just give the Russians some respect. They are only one of three nations to have successfully developed a space program.

The funny part is how far along the integration is between Russia and the West at the ground level, and how completely oblivious to this the leaders at the top are.

Just a reminder that people in power will always seek external scapegoats to justify their continuation in power.

As for Chaves. He sure is funny today, but in 5-15 years when his little fiefdom comes crashing down I don't think the Venezuelans will be laughing.

Since when did we care about Venezuela (or Iran) anyway? Are these the best enemies we have left?

[Ted O'Connor]

Tom. I think "dumb bombs" still work on dumb opponents. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Russians do not have a great track record when fighting outside of their own country. World War II being partially excluded. They certainly whipped the Germans inside Russia. One could argue that the German army was already defeated when the Russians pursued them into Germany. The Mujaheddin (with our surface to air missiles) drove them out of Afghanistan. Their army staggered and stumbled under inept leadership in WWI and before that they were humiliated by the Japanese in 1905. Their specialty has been sending the tanks in to put down political unrest in helpless places like Hungry. I remember a Russian pilot who defected with his MIG fighter to Japan. He was being interviewed by newsmen (before we got there and whisked him away) and he said his greatest concern was that his plane might be out of the de-icer fluid that kept the windshield clear. He said the ground crews at his cold and isolated base were always drinking the de-icer. I never much worried about the Russians after that.

[russiannavyblog]

A little bit of reflection on the part of the Russians in the immediate aftermath of the Five Day War (or the War to Bring the Georgians to Peace, both of which are in popular use):

http://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/2008/08/ruckus-in-caucusus-brutul-russian-self.html