Russian Policy, Horses Mouth

Kama

As have said before, shill for Russian State-gangster capitalism that I presumably am, I have this scary problem in that Putin (psycho) makes a lot more sense when he talks about, y'know, the world and stuff, than our Democratic Western Leaders of the Free World. Anyway, here he is on arms races and missile shields etc.

I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to something I said in last year's Address. We have learned from the Soviet Union's experience and we will not be drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.


The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the world." And we are going to proceed this way in the future.


Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 percent of GDP and will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which include quite advanced military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people.In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.

Putin, 2007

Overheal

I'd like to hear how he plans to outwit a missile defense system on a commie's salary.

Kama

On a commie's salary as one of the world largest oil producers, with massive gas revenues?

Also note, he said asymmetric warfare. Which is cheaper and more cost-effective, generally.

SeanW

Kama wrote: »

Also note, he said asymmetric warfare. Which is cheaper and more cost-effective, generally.

+1;

Just ask Al Quaeda.

Kama

Hehe I think AlQ learnt a few lessons from Michael Collins, as did Mao, on how best to fight asymmetrically. The RUssians and the Chinese have the luxury of having one enemy to focus on, in wargames and strategy. So their development can focus on avoiding their strengths, hitting their weaknesses; as Putin said, asymmetric.

Specifically to advanced capitalist military-industrial-commercial malarkeys such as our own, the 'returns' on system disruption are colossal in relation to the capital required to execute them. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta is another good example, but less hierarchical and centralized than AlQ is likely to be. Cheap swarm tactics, open-sourcing and outsourcing militias, and system disruption on Shell. Someone learned their lesson after Ken Saro-Wiwa.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

As have said before, shill for Russian State-gangster capitalism that I presumably am, I have this scary problem in that Putin (psycho) makes a lot more sense when he talks about, y'know, the world and stuff, than our Democratic Western Leaders of the Free World. Anyway, here he is on arms races and missile shields etc.

The only problem is that talk is cheap. So you think Putin going on about he he is going to build a cheap weapons system is somehow ... good?

Maybe if every was like the Swiss there would be lot less deaths. But that would require a level of slf-restraint that most politicians dont seem to have.

Kama

Trying to be value-neutral actually turgon; showing developments without taking a side insofar as possible. Though you could notice I called Putin a psycho at the start of the thread...which spoils it slightly...

So no, I don't think it's 'good'. But I'm not a fan of 'war is inevitable because politicians don't have self-restraint/people are evil/etc' either.

fly_agaric

Overheal wrote: »

I'd like to hear how he plans to outwit a missile defense system on a commie's salary.

Russia is about as "commie" as, well, as....a country thats as far away from communism as possible! Russia is a corrupt (crony)-capitalist autocracy. Almost a sort of "corporatist" state as I think I vaguely understand the term...

Sand

Russia is about as "commie" as, well, as....a country thats as far away from communism as possible! Russia is a corrupt capitalist autocracy

corrupt capitalist autocracy

There, not that far away afterall.

Kama

States can act as capitalists imo Sand. Singapore seems to, sovereign wealth funds are states acting on capitalist principles as market actors (from a purely laissez-faire theoretical lens, all states with intervention in favour of business interests are state capitalist I guess). Its ugly in terms of how it fits in market theory, especially philosophically but seems kinda brute fact. Its a variant trend of capitalism, along with laissez-faire, mercantilist, and so on, but still capitalist in general definition, as a private capitalist economy under state control. Term seems to be in general use:

Andrei Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, resigned in December 2005, protesting Russia's "embracement of state capitalism." Wiki

I'm curious how else one conceptualises the changes in Russian and Chinese market reconstruction if not as capitalist in nature.

fly_agaric

Sand wrote: »

corrupt capitalist autocracy

There, not that far away afterall.

lol, I was struggling for the best way to describe it...
I realise some lovers of the (free)-market as the path to human freedom, democracy and all that jazz may not like to acknowledge that Russia is a capitalist state.:pac:
Of course, its ironic that the current political system of Russia (...and thus the new tension with the US & Western Europe) is at least partly the creation of the various Western experts in freedom of markets & democracy who "helped" Yeltsin & co after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Kama

Meh, more of a response than a creation. But Russian 'liberalization' on supposed Chicago School/Neoliberal lines did open the door for mafia capitalism, no doubt; 'ex' KGB/FSB and mafia heads leveraging their political and physical capital into economic dominance in true robber baron fashion. The book McMafia is a good guide here.

Shows the importance of institutions and regulation rather than 'teh markets fix all' faith-based policy perhaps...

Victor

Overheal wrote: »

I'd like to hear how he plans to outwit a missile defense system on a commie's salary.

Cruise missiles that can't be seen over the horizon or in ground clutter or one more more crude ballistic missiles that the defender has of their defensive missiles. Energy weapons don't have the same (a) surge or (b) atmosphere penetrating capabilities that missiles do.

Overheal

Energy weapons though are still largely in development. Though saying that, it's exactly why the ballistic-missile-rush wouldn't work - while not really an offensive option, laser systems have been equipped on military planes and ships, and they have been field tested for missile interception. In the time it would take to bulk up on ballistic missiles these interception systems would only get faster and more accurate to the point where one system could intercept dozens of missiles.