Putin: agent exposure or comprador? Part 1

Putin: an agent of influence or comprador?  Part 1 This could be considered a continuation of the article "Putin Awards" and wrap-up of forum discussions. But it will not just open a discussion "act", and that their perspective, that is the article title — output or external dependencies, or disposition of the comprador Russian authorities. I often have to take part in the discussions on this particular occasion, and here I would like to gather together all the facts that contradict though which of these options. Especially since after the nationalization of Yukos and the conflict with Georgia, they are obvious. But clean up the "Augean stables" lies about the nature of Russian power needed. Without a proper understanding of the political situation can not be.

Standards lies will be:

  • 1. Article Eduard Samoilov "Putin: a CIA agent or" just "an agent of exposure?"
  • 2. Article Anatoly Baranov "Putin's Plan — de-industrialization of the country"
  • 3. The article "a group of professionals" APN "Results with Vladimir Putin: Crisis and the expansion of the Russian army".
  • 4. Article by Anders Aslund "Exposing the great myth of President Putin".
  • 5. Articles like Vladislav Shurygina "Afterword to the requiem".

You can bring a huge number of publications in the media, which one way or another played up the "facts" of these articles. And their opposition is using very different political orientation — pro-Western liberals, nationalists, leftists. In fact, all though the facts are often the opposite coloring in terms of ideology. Like the nationalization of Yukos. Because the opposition of different political orientation must treat them differently, often in inverse sense. Let's try to see those main "facts" that are placed as a reproach to the current government:

1. "Destruction" of the army:

  • — "Our army, air force and navy have on any aspects can not now be called modern."
  • — "Reduce the fraction of military spending of GDP"
  • — "Combat readiness of most units and critically low."
  • — "The collapse of strategic nuclear forces."

The issue of defense is a landmark for determining the nature of Russian power and so much a lot of heresy devoted specifically to this dilemma. More power to blacken than a sharp decrease in the country's defense? Yet even after a positive conclusion about the state of the enemies of Putin remains the argument — "Our homeland — cannon fodder against China, and therefore it can strengthen the army." The familiar argument that often sounds after painstaking research question. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, and closely examine the "facts", allegedly proving the guilt of power in the collapse of the army. But first note — we should talk about the period of Putin, and not Yeltsin, when the destruction of the country and provoked the destruction of the army.

In almost all the failures of the Russian army was povinet destruction of the USSR — Russian army could not be objectively stronger army of the USSR, the part can not be greater than the whole. This simple logic "forgets" mouthpieces of the opposition often comparing the data of the 80s with the modern — "If in 1988 the factories Soviet Union produced 3.5 thousand tanks, then in 1996 it was ordered 58 tanks" — Shurigin writes. There are two immediately pinned — SOVIET Soyuz compared to Yeltsin's collapse, and the wine rests with Putin. The largest scale tank production of the USSR with an era of profound crisis of. Even if we imagine that the country would produce the tanks in such numbers for 10 years, the number of 35 thousand tanks would amaze imagination of the most notorious warlords. How many tanks are generally required to have a country? Is dependent on military doctrine and capabilities of the economy. U.S. has 8 thousand, China — 7 thousand present, that we pretty 10 thousand. How to create a country in a year? If we imagine that the tank is 20 years, only 500 units per year to do them, to maintain the same amount. But the tank, taking into account upgrading, and will last longer. Then rather create 250 units per year, and also to upgrade of 250 pieces. If we wish to have in service is not 10 thousand, and only 5 thousand tanks (which is slightly more consistent ability of the economy), it is useful to create and update, respectively, 125 units per year. Ordinary mathematics? Let it serves as a kind of benchmark in similar statistics, not to go to extremes.

If you teach publication Shurygina that throws the numbers from the horn of abundance, you should note the complete lack of analysis of the current state of the Army, his replacement data on military orders. They really are insignificant, but that is completely respectful premise.

Thus, about tanks. How is lying Shurigin? Initially, a reference to the anonymous information on the plans tenfold (!) Reduction of tanks, and then:
"Curiously, the General Staff Makarov seriously believe that 430 T-90 together with another 1,500 T-80 and T-72" in which case "under the nut roll out the shock brigades United States …"
It is clear that in Russia only [url = http://] T-72 [/ url] more than 9700 pieces: The Military Balance 2007 / C. Langton. — London: Routlege / The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2007. — P. 196. — ISBN 1-85743-437-4. This is more than the total number of tanks in at least some other country. And these T-72 are currently undergoing modernization program from, to melt them no one is going to send. Apart from their being upgraded and [url = http://] T-80 [/ url], of which 6,500 pieces.

Shurigin know about the significant number of tanks were in service, but writes:

"To understand the" scale "of modernization, rather remind you that for the current day or of the 20,000 tanks were in service with the Russian Armed Forces, 9,000 tanks out of service and need a complete refit or repair factory expensive equipment. And of the remaining 11,000 tanks around half are also not able to get out of the boxes because of the lack of different devices or damage, or require the substitution of those other sites which simply do not have to have long been deserted warehouses of spare parts. "

I even wanted to continue the "mathematical series" Shurygina "capable of remaining out of the box 6-thousand tanks, only half will be 100 meters without breaking. Out of the 3 thousand is not broke, only half will have a serviceable armament. And so on … Vsepolnotsennyh to a couple of tanks. "It's amazing that Shurigin braked in their own" half-hearted "fantasies. Though half of the tank park really is faulty and / or obsolete. Indeed, many of the tanks more than 30 years! There is no disaster — and the remaining half is completely serviceable enough, if we compare with the number of tanks at a military states: As part of the U.S. bronesil — 8 thousand tanks, NATO countries — 11 million, China — 7.1 thousand, North Korea — 3.5 thousand, South Korea — 2.4 million This is the total number of tank fleet of different states, and includes older models, which are also a lot more than half. At the same USA far not all tanks are the new "Abrams" M1A2. They began to produce the M1 since 1980 and he yielded to arm and booking of Russian T-64. A new M1A2, designed in 1992, initially planned to order the 3000 cars, but due to the collapse of the USSR order has been reduced to 1,809 units, then — up to 122 cars, and in the end — ordered a total of 62 cars (1 battalion). In other words, the main in service with the U.S. worth more than an old M1 (built 3273 tanks for the U.S. Army) and 5017 M1A1 (including the U.S. Army in 4796, 221 in the U.S. Marine Corps M1A1). How many of these tanks twenties able to come out of the boxes nobody considered. Against this background, 430 pieces of our new T-90, already standing in service of, seem strshnoy militarization.

Naturally, the process of modernizing the U.S. — it was decided to upgrade 998 M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 level. We have a similar example program of modernization of T-72 and T-80. For this program there in 2015 needs to be upgraded about 1,400 tanks (as in 2006 was upgrading 180 tanks). But in the camp of the opposition voices that "Our homeland segodnyaschy stepping on a rake upgrade by repeating the bad design of the USSR". Frame cost to upgrade will not lead to an increase in fighting the devil an old car. But we need to see what a thoroughly modern T-90 is simply a deeply modernized T-72. Because of old times and modernization of T-72 brings them to the features of a modern car — set a new, more powerful engine, brand new gun, fire control system, protection. According to the combat effectiveness of the upgraded T-72M1 exceeds its own particular "ancestor" in 1.99 times and on this indicator close to the T-90S. At a cost of 30% of new one. Where is the "rake"? And why all these gentlemen wish? So that we have sent to the scrap of old times 20 thousand tanks left with only 400-E T-90? To rend the country by stamping on 3 thousand tanks a year? Who is the general "agent exposure"?

Rastopshin, Staff liar from the "independent" states, "That even before the end of our modernization M1A1 tanks," Leopard 2 "," Challenger "reincarnated as the M1A2 SEP,« Leopard 2A5 "," Challenger-2. "In other words, our taxpayer money will be paid by the level of two decades ago. Note that the level of armor protection of our tanks, adjusted to the level of the M1A1, will yield significantly M1A2 tanks. "

Sorry, pochetaemy Rastopshin, but T-72 and to modernize superior M1A1 tanks to protect its conditional protection factor — 3.47 versus 2.71 at the "Abrams" M1A1 (T-90 has a coefficient of 3.94.) At what expense? First, due to generally the smallest amount of zabronevogo Russian tanks, allows to make thicker armor than Western tanks. Since the physical thickness of the armor, which makes up for the T-90 — 97 cm, T-80 — 90 cm, for a new "Leopard 2A5" — only 65 cm can be Compare turret armor (Front) for protection from piercing projectiles:

Putin: an agent of influence or comprador?  Part 1

Besides, as I said, the Americans are going to upgrade does not own the whole park M1A1 and this upgrade will hardly bring the level of protection to the level of the new M1A2. This will have to change the tower, which is very expensive. But the most important thing in Russia recently adopted plan to adopt a new tank T-95. T-95 does not have analogues in the world tank manufacturing. RF achieved certain advantages over high-quality modern tanks NATO:

Thus, taking into account the latest DZ T-95 is superior, "Abrams' M1A2 on frontal booking by approximately 20% (on the sides and the top of the hemisphere — even more). Energy of the new 135 mm gun is even higher than the 120 mm gun "Yankee", but because of the low property armor-piercing projectiles (BPS) Russian armor piercing cannon lower by about 15%. The advantage the United States in the field of fire control systems and CICS does not have to and read. At the same time, the rate of T-95 tool half times greater tank itself almost half a meter below. In the end, that runs through the barrel of the gun the latest anti-tank missile is bound to have a more impressive features than today's 9M119M and 9M128, really own abilities to defeat NATO tanks outside the range of their guns. In general, missiles, allowing to do it more or less tightly, have the caliber 152 mm. In other words, the overall parity with the current "Abrams", "Leopard" and "Challenger" will be achieved with perceptible superiority of Russian cars.

So Makar, low number of orders tanks can be explained with 2 factors — the huge number of tanks, already standing on the arms, and a speedy Adopting a more advanced and modern machines. These criteria orders for the T-90 due to the rapid support of the manufacturer, if the military needs. Besides changing role of tanks in modern warfare, they became vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons and need more support to all other types of weapons. So "During the fighting in Lebanon were hit by 52" Merkava "tank of 400 3 types (MK2, MK3 and MK4), participated in the conflict. 208 crew members from the destroyed tanks killed 23 people. 50 tanks were hit ATGM missiles, two — stepped on a land mine. "

Many countries are reviewing their attitude to the tanks and the UK — a country where 93 years back was invented tank, generally stops production of this type of equipment. Our home did not stop, but fussing about with tanks by other means — is developed and put into service BMPT, tank support combat vehicle. As they say military experts "in the near future we should expect an increase in the ability to" loop "- at the expense of a heavy infantry fighting vehicles and specialized machines created for the oppression of infantry (BMPT)."

Here we must mention another fact, which studiously overlook Putin's opponents who think tanks. Modern war is becoming more mobile, and in light of the growing role of mobile as the troops that we usually referred to as "assault". And, accordingly, increasing the role of light armored vehicles. Our home here and has proved quite intense — in 2005 adopted for the BMD-4 "Bakhcha-U", airborne combat vehicle, respectively, have a light tank weapons, and in 2006 — "Octopus-SD" 2S25, 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun. These new machines can swim and can parachute, and are already in the army (about [url = http://] 320 BMD-4 [/ url] and [url = http://] 60 Octopus-SD [/ url]) . Production facilities "Kurgan" allow annually produce about 3 million of military vehicles. Shurigin and the company simply did not mention.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: