Russian Navy "On Verge of Collapse"

Well Greece also had spend Mil´s at Olympic games. Not to mention these fine Leopard and other millitary stuff. Not to mention their inefficient financial system. But I guess the small Greek people are not to blame, more the "oligarchs". Guess Russia has simmilar problems tho. Putin tried to correct some of them it seems (we will see how succesful he is/was - at least the Russian debt is quite low also oil price seems to rise which helps them to a decree)....


Also I must retract my love of Le Pen a bit, I read she said, after the debatte on the CIA torture report, that under certain circumstances torture would be ok. Ofc this is madness.

Still most of her other points are ok with me and she is a quite cool chick imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83NsHR5-0-Y

 

BL, if Le Pen don´t want outsiders i.e. non-French to France, how would Russians make a difference. the old saying is that the Brits F everybody who is white, the French F everybody who speaks French....

 

I think my highest debt must be 200,- or so I had. Yes I pay everything cash. But I live only in a small cheap flat, have an old VW (20 yrs old) and don´t need luxury or expensive fashion stuff from Apple etc. Don´t have TV or radio, have 2 good PCs which I built myself. Other than that not much...well some metals ofc. if the shit should hit the fan.
I don´t have friends or familiy who take huge debt. My brother did tho to buy a new BMW which I found stupid, but he earns more than me so I guess can pay it back quite fast...

I learned that in Denmark one bank now actually gives interest (0,x?) if you lend money from them. In this case I might get some debt too perhaps... Interest is also so low now that saving is senseless anyway.

 

Guess she means mostly outsiders from Europe.....I never heard that European countries have much difficulties with people from Europe. Except the Swiss I heard were annoyed with too much Germans comming and stealing their jobs etc. A lot of Dutch work in Germany and Germans work in Holland or Denmark eg. No problems there.
I worked with Dutch, Norwegians and British - no problems with ém.

However the French are special I think, a) you need to speak French and b) they have enough unemployment so don´t need really more immigrants...

 

Watching the video and seeing her past comment's to me she just another idiot politician. A few Muslims become radical and she equates the entire Muslim community as radicals when doing so actually marginalizes them and drives them into the arm's of radicals. Not wanting any immigration, News flash, With the currently aging populations in all of the world's advanced economies and the fact the domestic population growth is shrinking if Le Pen got her way France would see a short term benefit from more job's but then suffer medium to long term through the lack of worker's to support the economy and the ever growing number of french retirees. The fact the French fought so hard against increasing the retirement age, if Le pen get's her way then France is going to be worse then Greece long term.

All Le Pen is is a racist with no realization of the economical cost's long term.

All that aside, What the F does any of this have to do with the Russian Navy???

 

Some clever guy brought up that Russia alledgly funded Le Pen.


So you think it is clever to let more and more people form outside Europe in an European country that already has a high unemployment rate, because maybe in 20-30 years or so their might be a lack of workforce because the population is "ageing" ? Seems clever. Also any EU country can recruit from the whole EU... there are more than enough workers looking for jobs (Spain, Greece, Italy etc.). And you also think that rationalisation and automatisation of work will be delayed or turned back ? Where should all the jobs come from the immigrants can take ? You even have now in some countries automatic cashier systems etc.

Where do you live btw? Is your population also "ageing" ?

Also she says that she has nothing against muslims, only against extreme fundamentalists (this is my viewpoint too).

 

Perhap's Russia funds Le pen but in no case does any of that relate to the Russian bloody Navy. I don't mind people diversifying the talk but we have to keep it to some level focused on the main aim of the topic and so far the Russian Navy has become a long distance cousin in here....

What she say's and her action's are two very different thing's.

I think it's prudent to have immigration be that from within the EU or globally, Yes to an extent it should be managed to prevent over immigration but in no way should it be stopped all out. It's not maybe in 20 - 30 years there might be a lack of workforce, its there will be. The percentage of the population over 65 is rising through out Europe, The higher the percentage the higher the cost to support them, And the fewer people to join the work force long term, Simple facts, Not what if's.

Yes nations around Europe have worker's looking for job's but that will only last so long, Spain, Greece and Italy may all have worker's to spare at the moment but all three of them also have higher percentage of population aged 65 and over then France so they are in an even worse position.

For the record I live in Australia, Our population is ageing and we do have immigration, Higher then France in fact, 400%+ higher.

 

To get us back on track. Some recent tidbits
http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-plan-to-build-a-supercarrier-is-a-waste-2015-4
http://theweek.com/articles/545980/russian-navy-verge-collapse

But it does seem that the Russian Navy is focusing on their submarines:
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/19/russian-navy-chief-submarine-patrols-up-50-percent-over-last-year

 

Indeed but bund is being a bit deceptive in this regard as well. I believe he originally inserted Le pen into the conversation as being someone who supported his position in regards to Russia (although I'm not sure even at that point there was any connection to the Russian Navy). Subsequently others pointed out that her support was essentially bought and paid for and that in so doing the Russians rather discredited thier anti right wing position. This is a pretty standard tactic by those like Bund though who find their original position discredited. They bring up something marginally connected and controversial to deflect the converstation away from their obviouis failures to make their points. Of course it usually ends up as in this case from them moving from one discredited position to another.

 

Theweek article (originally posted back in post 319) rather brings to question their ability to maintain that op tempo for their subs though. This bit doesn't inspire confidence in their long term sub capability either:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20150423.aspx

Here's an article on a new Russian sub entering service so it's not a completely bleak picture:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20150315.aspx
On the other hand if this is an expanding problem for the Russian economy it will start impacting the navy at some point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/world/europe/russian-workers-take-aim-at-putin-as-economy-exacts-its-toll.html?ref=europe&_r=0

 

Here's another article, which includes commentary on Russia's ability to replace these aging hulks:

Russia's Navy more rust than ready.

 

Thanks didn´t know that - always thought Australia has simmilar high immigration hurdles like Canada & Switzerland.


Well back to topic, right:



Guess the French need to decide what to do with these ships soon, they won´t get younger over time..... the longer they lay the less worth are they. But that´s their thing if they cannot kepp contracts, they are only to blame themselves.

 

The longer Russia keeps the old Soviet era 'crap' the more costly and the longer it will take to bring in the modern stuff. Russia need's to do something drastic not just for the navy but the military across the board, Scrap almost everything, Shrink the force down massively and rebuild it into a more modern better equipped force. These old boat's taking up finances, dry docks and worker's hours I'd say have been a big part in the slow production in other newer vessels.

As to the French ships, While a contract has been signed has any money changed hands? Not unheard of for stuff to be built on credit and cash paid after the vessel was accepted.

 

I believe some money at least has changed hands as I read that the French have stated they'll reimburse the Russians if they don't end up delivering the ships. I doubt that they will deteriate much in the next year or two and there's a good chance the French can find another buyer if the Russians don't come to their senses.

 

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to when the conflict in Ukraine began. The common theme seems to be Russia "took" Crimea and broke the treaty signed concerning Ukraine in the 1990's. While others (myself included) have claimed and presented information that pointed at the U.S. Govt once again playing an role in destabilizing a nation. Numerous sources have been provided which showed that the U.S. not only supported the opposition but also funded them ($5 billion). This all came regardless of the fact that the individuals whom the US was funding were Neo Nazis.

Since all of the sources pointing a figure at the U.S. were quickly rejected I would like to see sources claiming that the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with the revolution in Ukraine.

 

The money for ships has been paid. As for Russia's military capabilities and new hardware, we shall see on May 9th.

 

More then likely the US did support the opposition, However that in no way proves that the US actively aided in disposing of the former president Viktor Yanukovych. That aside did Russia not also try to destabilize them through financial means in their effort to force Ukraine to join CIS rather then the EU.

 

That's really a matter of semantics. Depending on how you want to look at it one can say it started with the Russian siezeure of Crimea or go all the way back to the original Russiand conquest of the Ukraine.

Most common perhaps becuase it's accurate and true (although the treaty was not just with the Ukraine).

The US supported pro democracy elements in the Ukraine which was completely legal and violated no international agreements. The US funding to the opposition was also quite above the board in contrast to Russian actions during that period. Bribing the Ukrainian head of state to betray his promises to the Ukrainian people and supporting his illegal acts against them was a bit much.

That's not quite accurate though is it? The US supported a number of opposition groups most if not all of which were arguably pro democracy groups. That some of their members and/or sub organizations may have been Neo Nazis is not of great import is it?

Well since their wasn't a revolution how could the US be involved? Now if you mean the replacing the former head of state who abandoned his position (likely to prevent his arrest and conviction on numerous charges) there is no question that the US supported at least some of those who opposed him. So your charge is either false or a strawman, take your pick.

*** edut to put reply in the right thread ***

 

Back on topic here's an article focusing on Russian subs:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20150430.aspx
One does wonder if they think that the lack of money will prevent the acquisitoin of new subs whether or not the cost of refurbishing will guarantee it.

 

My apologizes for a brief high jack of thread. This discussion can be discussed elsewhere but you have yet to provide a source stating US had nothing to do with destabilizing a sovereign state...

As for blackmailing??? Russian has given Ukraine more money than US and Europe combined over the last decade.
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/ukraines-economy-needs-russia