Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15745
    Points : 16242
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  George1 Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:30 pm

    The Zapad-2021 (or West-2021) Russian-Belarusian military exercise will focus on countering cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, Russia’s Western Military District said in a statement.

    https://tass.com/defense/1241929

    GarryB likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5410
    Points : 5404
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:02 am

    Interesting ideas: https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2021-01-14/3_1124_east.html?print=Y
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3851
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:41 pm

    A Russian think tank review

    The ratio of the combat capabilities of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO in Europe
    How much blood will NATO's defeat at the European theater of operations cost?

    https://qn7veek3vy676ftip3x3nsvd5y--russtrat-ru.translate.goog/analytics/9-fevralya-2021-0010-2930

    Cyberspec likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3851
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:43 pm

    Russian Defense Ministry for the first time in 30 years refused to participate in the OSCE seminar

    For the first time in 30 years, representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense have not taken part in an OSCE seminar on military doctrines in connection with the unfriendly policies of the West. This was announced on Tuesday, February 9, by the head of the Russian delegation at the talks on military security and arms control Konstantin Gavrilov.

    “The Americans invited us, there was a request. We answered them that in connection with the current situation on the Russian borders with the conduct of exercises, flights of reconnaissance aircraft of the Russian Defense Ministry, we consider it inappropriate to participate in this seminar for the first time in 30 years, "Gavrilov said in an interview with RIA Novosti. ...

    He noted that a delegation from the Russian Federation participates in the negotiations on military security and arms control. She is expected to deliver her closing remarks with a statement on military doctrine.

    According to Gavrilov, participation in this seminar is envisaged at the level of the General Staff. “But in conditions when they interpret NATO expansion as a containment of Russia, the Ministry of Defense refused to participate in the seminar,” he added.

    The high-level seminar is traditionally organized every five years. This year it will be held on February 9-10 in remote mode. The event is being organized by the Chairperson of the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation, currently the United States.

    On January 26, NATO Secretary General Iena Stoltenberg appealed to the members of the NATO Military Committee to support the defense potential of the alliance member states, including in connection with Russian policy.

    He advised allies in the alliance not only to increase defense spending, but also to invest in modern capabilities and ensure that the military remains ready to respond to allegedly aggressive actions from Russia, the risks of the rise of China and terrorism.

    At the end of December last year, Stoltenberg said that Russia does not pose a military threat that could threaten NATO's activities. At the same time, he noted that the Russian Federation is strengthening, allegedly "interfering in democratic processes" in the United States and France and "is behind cyber attacks" on the parliaments of Germany and Norway.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon, Hole and TMA1 like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3022
    Points : 3024
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  LMFS Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:48 am

    Not sure where to put this, but it has been commented a lot and is a fundamental piece of information about how Russia sees herself reacting to a potential, conventional NATO aggression. In short: beating the shit out of them before they can attack. So much for the "defensive" approach the West has mislead themselves into thinking, when reality is that Russia has no intention of taking blow after blow but to strike first if forced to. All the details here (p.29):

    The aviation battle application justification aviation to disrupt an integrated massive air strike in the enemy multisphere operation

    V.I. STUCHINSKIY, Doctor of Military sciences, Associate Professor
    MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
    M.V. KOROLKOV, Candidate of Military sciences, Associate Professor
    MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)

    The article substantiates the need for complex aviation destruction of critical objects in the
    operational depth in order to disrupt the initial stage of an integrated massive air strike planned to be
    carried out within the framework of the enemy's «multi-sphere operation». A possible space-time
    construction of an integrated massive air strike is presented.
    Keywords: multi-sphere operation, integrated massive air strike, operational and tactical aviation,
    reconnaissance-strike system.

    https://vva.mil.ru/upload/site21/Ndz0E2BEpk.pdf

    GarryB likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3851
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:57 pm

    Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    Some fascination with the entire world by the military successes of the United States led to the fact that the American concept of domination of the fleet and aviation over the ground forces began to be borrowed even by those for whom it categorically did not fit.

    The US ground forces are completely redundant from the point of view of ensuring the protection of the country. This protection, due to its geographic location, is provided by the Navy and Air Force. The Americans need ground forces exclusively for external interventions.

    In Russia, the situation is completely different. It is a continental country with the world's longest land borders, most of which are not protected by natural geographic boundaries. There can be no question of defending the country with a fleet. Strategic Missile Forces, Air Force and Air Defense are necessary, but, as the experience of Syria and Karabakh has once again confirmed, wars are won on the ground.

    The rearmament of the RF Armed Forces, which began at the end of the 2000s, saved them from collapse, and this applies to each type of the Armed Forces separately. At the same time, a brief description of this rearmament is most relevant to the ground forces: good, but not enough.

    The Navy ( "Where Are the Andreevskie Flags Going" , "NVO" of 07/31/2020) is rearming even faster than one might expect, while remaining a "luxury item". A lot of new aviation and anti-aircraft missile equipment entered the Aerospace Forces, which, alas, did not completely eliminate the "holes" in the air defense in the eastern part of the country. Although aviation can largely compensate for the lack of vehicles with high strategic mobility.

    Uneven army

    The unevenness of the rearmament of the ground forces in the territorial aspect is striking. If we use a five-point scale, ZVO ( "How to contain a soap bubble" , "NVO" from 09/11/2020) and YuVO ( "Is another war between Russia and Turkey possible" , "NVO" from 09/25/2020) are now equipped with a solid four. They confidently neutralize the armies of Georgia and Ukraine and provide security from the NATO bubble that sparkles rosy on the western borders. Is that Ankara's ambitions create certain problems.

    TsVO and VVO, together occupying more than 80% of the territory of Russia, alas, do not even pull a two. In the Central Military District ( "Short Blanket of the Central District" , "NVO" dated 10/30/2020), the update affected almost exclusively the Volga-Ural part, directly adjacent to the Western Military District and the Southern Military District. In the formations and units of the Air Defense Forces ( "Is the Eastern District Ready to Fight to Death" , "NVO" dated 17.12.20), only individual "injections" of new weapons were carried out, which practically does not change the overall picture: the district remains a "museum of antiques" (BMP-1, ATGM "Konkurs", ZSU "Shilka", etc.). This, to put it mildly, is strange, given that the Air Defense Forces is entrusted with the task of containing the world's strongest army - the PLA, which is rearming much faster than the Russian army.

    Thus, in a relatively small European part of the country there is a significant number of well-equipped units and formations of ground forces. And the developed transport network of the region allows relatively fast maneuvering of forces. In the gigantic eastern part of the country, we see a small number of not too well-equipped units and formations with an extremely poorly developed transport network. Therefore, it can be said that the program of rearmament of the RF Armed Forces has not even reached the middle, and in the future, priority attention should be paid to the ground forces.

    Tanks, infantry, artillery fire

    The wars in the Donbass, the Caucasus and the Middle East show that in a classic war the sides suffer huge losses in armored vehicles: they are very large in tanks, in infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are simply catastrophic ( "Infantry does not walk" , "NVO" dated 23.10.20). But there is no replacement for armored vehicles and is not expected. There is only one way out: strengthening the active and passive protection of tanks ( "Premature rejection of armor" , "NVO" dated 02.21.20) and the creation of an infantry fighting vehicle based on the tank ( "Queen of the fields in the XXI century" , "NVO" dated 04/12/19).

    This is what the Armata project is aimed at. It involves the creation of a family of combat vehicles, the main of which are the T-14 tank and the T-15 BMP. This is a fundamental step in our military history: not only the creation of a new generation of armored vehicles (where we were almost always catching up), but also a new, unconventional approach to preserving the lives of servicemen.

    At the same time, as the experience of the aforementioned wars shows, quantity is no less important than quality. There should be a lot of equipment, otherwise its acquisition is pointless both in military and economic terms. The current European practice of purchasing new equipment in microscopic quantities is a senseless waste of money. You have to either buy a lot or not buy anything. For the ground forces, several thousand T-14 and T-15 must be purchased. In this regard, the question arises about the expediency of purchasing BMP "Kurganets" and armored personnel carriers "Boomerang". They may be good cars, but they are built on traditional concepts that ultimately lead to huge losses. Isn't it easier to abandon them, transferring all forces and resources to the "Armata"? This applies even more to the Terminator BMPT:Isn't it easier to use the same T-15 with a universal combat module? Perhaps the Russian Guard needs Boomerang, but this is a different department and a different way of posing the question.

    The experience of recent wars also shows that artillery ( "The God of War is still in favor" , "NVO" dated 01.18.19) has by no means lost its traditional role. At the same time, rocket artillery becomes more important than cannon artillery, since it provides a much greater damaging effect ( "Keeping the divine status" , "NVO" from 20.11.20). Russia has a unique weapon - the flamethrower MLRS TOS-1, which in its damaging properties is not inferior to a low-power nuclear charge, only without harmful side effects (penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination).

    Rockets supplement the artillery. First, it is the Iskander OTRK ( Strategic Weapon of the Poor , NVO dated 17.08.18), a kind of aviation substitute capable of effectively hitting priority targets. However, with very high performance characteristics, Iskander also has a very high price, so its goals should really be a priority. The main part of the army missiles are ATGMs ( "There will be nothing to fight with Chinese tanks" , "NVO" dated 12.21.18). They are orders of magnitude cheaper than the Iskander. As the current local wars show, ATGMs (primarily of Soviet and Russian production) are consumed in battle in gigantic quantities and sometimes almost for individual soldiers.

    With ATGMs, no one removed their initial task - the fight against armored vehicles, primarily with tanks. Our army also needs them to solve this problem, this especially applies to the Central Military District and the Air Defense Forces. But now ATGMs are becoming a universal weapon, so ATGMs should already be not only with cumulative, but also with other types of warheads. Their range can vary a lot, sometimes making ATGMs almost tactical missiles. Examples of such a missile are the Israeli "Spike-NLOS", Japanese Ture 96 and MMRM. Our analogue of these systems should be "Hermes", but it somehow takes too long to be adopted into service.

    However, the actual aviation of the army is also needed. It was taken away from the ground forces at the beginning of the 21st century, which was categorically wrong ( "Diversity is better than deficit" , "NVO" dated 13.03.20). True, in the composition of the current districts, this problem is being solved. But the problem of the lack of combat vehicles is not being solved in the same Central Military District and the Air Defense Forces.

    The problem of fighting enemy aircraft is even more urgent. With regard to modern warfare, we can say that there is never too much air defense. On the other hand, all the leading armies of the world have long been accustomed to fighting such opponents who have no aviation. But these times are a thing of the past. Now even partisan formations will have unmanned aircraft. Moreover, even partisans can have both handicraft and conventional factory-made UAVs. In the first half of 2020, we could observe downright epic battles between the Russian-made Pantsir air defense missile system of the Syrian Armed Forces and the UAE against the Turkish combat drones Anka and Bayraktar in Syria and Libya. By and large, the battle did not reveal a clear winner. But in the second half of the year, the Bayraktars, as well as the Israeli Harop, staged a real massacre of the Armenian troops, including the air defense ("Armenia - Azerbaijan: 26 years later ” ,“ NVO ”dated 27.11.20).

    For several years now, the air defense of Russian bases in Syria has, as it were, successfully repelled regular attacks from UAVs organized by the same Turkey. The words "as it were" are added here because the price of the Thor air defense missile system and the Pantsir air defense missile system is quite comparable (if not even higher) with the price of the drones they hit. Now there seems to be a variant of the "Pantsir" with small and cheap missiles, designed just for the destruction of UAVs. True, until now, "Pantsiri" are supplied to the air defense missile systems of the Aerospace Forces as an "attachment" to the S-400 ( "Troops of Peaceful Skies" , "NVO" from 11/23/18), although the means of countering UAVs are much more relevant specifically for military air defense ... Perhaps the salvation here will be the ZSU "Derivation". Or Tor-M2.

    Battle robots

    Unmanned ground systems (robots) are not developing as fast as their "flying counterparts", that is, UAVs. But here, too, the trend is obvious: machines will increasingly replace people on the battlefield.

    Currently, the main spheres of action of robots are various types of reconnaissance, fighting fires, mines and explosive devices, transporting people and goods. The development of combat robots is still somewhat behind the development of auxiliary vehicles. Already created combat robots are used to solve relatively simple tasks (primarily for the protection of stationary objects). As in the case of UAVs, for combat ground robots, the problem of ensuring a completely reliable connection with the operator or having an autonomous action program that guarantees that the robot does not get out of control has not been solved. Moreover, it is more difficult to remotely control a ground robot than an UAV (due to the presence of terrain folds and a much shorter line-of-sight range). From an economic point of view, ground robots are significantly less profitable than UAVs:they are much fewer times cheaper than classical ground combat equipment than UAVs - cheaper than an aircraft or a helicopter.

    Attempts to create remotely controlled combat vehicles in a number of countries (including the USSR) were carried out in the pre-war period, but did not bring real success. This process resumed in the 1960s. In the army, robots appeared only in the XXI century, and the volume of their deliveries is several orders of magnitude lower than the volume of deliveries of UAVs.

    At present, Russia has developed medium-sized universal robots MRK-27, Soratnik, Platform-M, capable of carrying various weapons. Nerekhta and Uran-9 are heavier machines for the same purpose. The reconnaissance and engineering vehicles include "Kursant", "Varan", RTK-05, "Tornado", "Vepr", "Grasshopper", "Mongoose". "Uranus" were tested during the fighting in Syria. The Lynx is being developed according to the concept of a biomorphic robot. Attempts are being made to create a tank-robot based on the T-72, T-90 and "Armata". So far, however, all of these machines remain experimental. But at least our lag in ground-based robots is not as strong as in drones.

    Communication, electronic warfare and other

    Finally, the role of communications, electronic warfare, intelligence and command and control is extremely important today. Russia is now rapidly making up for its lag in these areas from the United States, Israel, and partly from China (including in drones). However, much remains to be done. In particular, it is necessary to combine all ACS of the Armed Forces and combat arms into a single system, as well as the creation of shock UAVs. On the other hand, it is the electronic warfare that best of all ensures the fight against enemy UAVs.

    Strengthening the defense of the eastern part of the country requires a complete re-equipment of existing formations and the formation of a number of new ones. Apparently, the concept of storage and repair bases for weapons and equipment (bhirvt), which has been preserved from Soviet times, most of which is located in the Air Defense Forces, requires a complete revision. They are usually equipped with extremely outdated technology and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese. The current bhirvt, of course, should be abolished, and the equipment from them should be distributed to the allies (first of all, to the Syrians). New bhirvt must be created in the rear and equipped with modern technology.

    The most important thing is to never forget that for continental Russia, ground forces will forever remain the main guarantor of its security. No scientific and technical revolutions will cancel this fact.

    About the author: Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2041
    Points : 2034
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:31 pm

    franco wrote:Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    No link?
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3851
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:25 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    franco wrote:Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    No link?

    https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2021-02-25/3_1130_concept.html
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5486
    Points : 5460
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  miketheterrible Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:52 pm

    and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese.

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Last time they tried, they got their asses kicked.  And China then had numerical superiority.  Technologically, China is still behind in all fields besides navy.  China's main foe is India and USA.

    Hell, by the time Chinese forces would be able to reach the border to capture these "bases" as the specialist says, Russian missiles would be flying at the Chinese formations and the airborne troops along with the AF would be dropping in behind their forces.  Not to mention Russia missiles would be heading to the Chinese military bases as well.

    Do these people think that playing games like civ or age of empires somehow make them think how smart they are?

    When many of those facilities in Russia were built, they were build in Soviet times when Russia already had a war with China. You think they didn't think things through when building them? Plus, how is the terrain in the area and exactly how far from the border?

    Russia would see the emassing of forces at its border rather easily and early, and would counter with a buildup of their own.

    Jesus Christ.

    Hole likes this post

    Scorpius
    Scorpius

    Posts : 181
    Points : 183
    Join date : 2020-11-06
    Age : 33

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Scorpius Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:42 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Because that's what they're paid to do. In fact, China's invasion of Russia - from a strategic point of view-is a shot in the foot. China is losing its most significant ally against the United States, losing access to huge amounts of resources, which it now freely buys for a small price. I'm not even saying that China will simply cease to exist under the attacks of nuclear missiles - just imagine that this factor does not exist.
    PhSt
    PhSt

    Posts : 387
    Points : 391
    Join date : 2019-04-02

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  PhSt Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:14 pm

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    If I may add, it looks like a lot of the Chinese population are moving out of northern China to migrate to Southern China where the climate is warmer and suitable for habitation. So all this talk of the Chinese wanting to takeover Siberia is a big piece of NATzO Bullocks Rolling Eyes

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon, PapaDragon, miketheterrible and lancelot like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7231
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Isos Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:25 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese.

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Last time they tried, they got their asses kicked.  And China then had numerical superiority.  Technologically, China is still behind in all fields besides navy.  China's main foe is India and USA.

    Hell, by the time Chinese forces would be able to reach the border to capture these "bases" as the specialist says, Russian missiles would be flying at the Chinese formations and the airborne troops along with the AF would be dropping in behind their forces.  Not to mention Russia missiles would be heading to the Chinese military bases as well.

    Do these people think that playing games like civ or age of empires somehow make them think how smart they are?

    When many of those facilities in Russia were built, they were build in Soviet times when Russia already had a war with China.  You think they didn't think things through when building them?  Plus, how is the terrain in the area and exactly how far from the border?

    Russia would see the emassing of forces at its border rather easily and early, and would counter with a buildup of their own.

    Jesus Christ.

    They are stupid and biased.

    Chinese military is first facing chinese population to keep the communist party at power.

    Then they are turned toward the sea to keep fishing lines open because no fishing = half of the population starving and dying.

    Then they need it for securing oil supply from middle east.

    Then they need it for their maritime lines protection.

    Then they need it to face huge enemies like India (1 million soldiers at their border), US, Japan, Korea...

    Then economicaly speaking, chinese population is leaving the north for the costal areas because they live better there. No one likes the cold Siberia.

    Russia is also providing them gaz from northern Russia and oil which is critical for them. They can't afford to loose it.

    Finally Russia has 5000 nuks.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:31 am

    There are antiques on the border because China is not the main threat that is moving its forces to Russian borders and talking about Russian aggression and such bullshit.

    China is also not inventing stories and imposing economic sanctions and penalties on Russia to damage relations.


    They are getting things just right in my opinion though it will be nice when they can retire their older systems and maybe pass them on to allies to continue the good fight of destroying western terrorist proxy forces.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3825
    Points : 3821
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Hole Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:37 pm

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 000173
    Not much AD in north-western China, the regions from where the "great attack on Russias weak central military district" will start, according to some morons.

    GarryB likes this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5486
    Points : 5460
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  miketheterrible Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:52 pm

    Yes, much like China's rather depopulated north, so is their military buildup.

    Does throw a wrench in the narrative of pro US Russian "experts" that's posted here.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:05 am

    Clearly the plan is to sow doubt and mistrust because if you can get one or the other to move forces and strengthen an area then the other side can jump up and down at the escalation and mirror that movement... both sides will see the increase in forces as suggesting some sinister motive... the Americans are trying to get India into their Anti China club because they need the numbers... if they can get some hostility between China and Russia... well that would be their biggest wet dream... that and Siberian separatism...

    The simple facts are that there are always problems over the exact path of borders.... especially borders based on rivers because you can change the path of a river...

    The Chinese have been good neighbours... excellent if you compare them with other neighbours Russia has... most of the Chinese citizens we have here are excellent citizens that do see China as the home country like white people here of British ancestry see Britain as the home country, but neither of us is going to want to become anything other than what we are... New Zealand citizens... we don't even want to be part of Australia.

    Countries should not fear their Chinese citizens any more than they should fear their european ones.

    The EU and HATO are proving to be much more hostile to Russia and Russian interests than China ever has... they are not really best buddies but there is mutual respect there... which there is none with the west for either country.

    Hole likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:14 pm