Happy Putin Gets His Gun

[snoopy369]

Fairly sure Russia researched labor unions a long time ago. Now, they should consider researching Stealth, perhaps...

[Sirotnikov]

The central point of the reform is the reorganization of the military command and control system from a four-tier (military district - army - division - regiment) to a three-tier structure (military district - operational command - brigade).

Well this has several implications.

First of all, it means that the strategic operational environment Russia is seeing is predominantely a defensive one.

Russia is interested in quickly projecting force or performing swift mid-scale actions - and not conquering Europe. This is already a major change.

A brigade based structure allows better mobility and initiative, but smaller scale actions, because the lack of a division limits the ability of the operational command to support large scale adventures from a logistical standpoint, unless a permanent logistical base is set up in enemy territory for the operational command.

This also includes the reorganization of the Defense Ministry and the General Staff of the Armed Forces, downsizing commissioned officer personnel, and eliminating the NCO corps.

That could reduce the amount of useless hacks who don't really have a speciality, beyond hazing newcomers. I'm not familiar enough with the NCO structure and roles, but its popular image is awfull.

Anatoly Serdyukov said there were currently more than 1,100 generals in the Russian military and around 200 generals' slots would be abolished during the same period, with the number of junior officers increasing.

The Defense Ministry will also reduce the number of senior personnel at central headquarters and high-level command structures by 60% from 22,000 to 8,500 by 2012.

The problem is that many NCO and officer veterans would have to be provided for, and the govt. will have to put them in other organizations to prevent inner political problems.

In addition, each military district will have an airborne brigade as a rapid-reaction unit. These units will be used to accomplish tactical missions "promptly and effectively."

Interesting. How is that different from the current airborne brigades and spetsnaz that exists in every district?

[Sirotnikov]

Well, that's an interesting strategy. Use anti-Americanism to build up army, but develop army specifically to deal with the Chinese.

I think most steps prepare them towards central-asia conflicts.

[Sirotnikov]

Actually - it all makes sense.

The main bulk of the army is being streamlined for fast-scale conflicts in central asia, and other russian border interests.

The strategic weapons build-up (actually, renewal) is there to make up for the shrinking army, keeping the major (but unlikely) opponents, the US and China, deterred.

The strategic weapons sure as hell aren't pointed at central asia, and the reduction of man power and reduction of divisions makes no sense against NATO/China.

[Dinner]

If I was Russia, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about China than the West.
Millions of needy people staring north at all those resources just waiting to be exploited. :homer drool:

Most of this is due to Russia's economy being in the dumper so, like Hitler, Putin wants to goose the economy with military spending. The rest is just nationalist chest thumping.

[Dinner]

Why the hell would they prioritize their strategic nuclear forces when that is the one sphere they already have parity in?

On another note, Russia plans on disbanding their NCO corps.

I have to say that is pretty bone headed as the NCO corp is the backbone of every modern Army. It means most of the career enlisted, who have most of the institutional knowledge, will be gone so it will either be become a commissioned officer or don't bother with a career in the Army. A modern Army needs these guys with 20-30 years of training and experience if it wants to retain the real skills which make a modern Army run. Unless they're going to make lower ranked officers function as Sargents then they're pissing in the wind on this one and will have a serious problem with mid-level leadership. There is a reason why even the revolutionary red army kept the evil Imperialist army's NCO Corp intact and that is because it works because NCOs are needed to make an Army function effectively.

[onodera]

We are not dismantling the whole NCO structure, only obsoleting the warrant officer ranks.

[FrostyBoy]

Fairly sure Russia researched labor unions a long time ago. Now, they should consider researching Stealth, perhaps...

Russians invented stealth.

[BeBMan]

And here's the reason for Russia's move

The French parliament has backed President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to take France fully back into Nato, rejecting a no-confidence motion.

Opposition critics and some among Mr Sarkozy's UMP party say the move will weaken French independence from the US.

But France's national assembly voted by 329 votes to 238 in favour of Mr Sarkozy's government.

The policy reverses a 1966 decision by the late President Charles de Gaulle to pull out of Nato's military command.

France is already among the top five contributors to Nato operations and currently has some 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, where it has suffered significant losses.

'Deep misgivings'

The outcome of the vote was never in doubt, the BBC's Alasdair Sandford reports from Paris.

The fact that this was a vote of confidence in the government ensured that dissenting voices within its ranks came on board in the end, our correspondent adds.


French soldiers on board a tank in Kapisa province, Afghanistan (18 February 2009)
France is already among the top five contributors to Nato operations

Q&A: France and Nato
France ends four-decade Nato rift
French face tough Afghan reality

Conservative Prime Minister Francois Fillon proposed the no-confidence motion two weeks ago amid heavy opposition to boosting ties with Nato.

No fewer than four former French prime ministers came out against the move.

One of them, senior Socialist Laurent Fabius, questioned whether in 2003 France would have taken a lead in opposing the invasion of Iraq, had it been a full Nato player.

But Prime Minister Fillon told the national assembly in a pre-debate session that the decision to re-join was "simply an adjustment" rather than a break from the past.

He rejected criticism that Paris would be forced to bow to US interests, saying France was always an ally to the United States, but never subordinate.

President Sarkozy formally announced in a speech last Thursday that he wanted France to rejoin Nato's military command.

The move reversed a decades-old decision by President de Gaulle to pull France out of the Nato command and evict the alliance's headquarters from French soil to affirm France's independence and its rise as a nuclear power in the Cold War world.

Mr Sarkozy said there was no sense in France - a founder member of Nato - having no say in the organisation's decisions on military strategy.

The return to the military command is now expected to become official at Nato's 60th anniversary summit that will be jointly hosted by France and Germany in Strasbourg next month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7948133.stm

[Elok]

I wonder, have they also considered having an army that isn't run like a gigantic concentration camp? It'd probably function better.

[Patroklos]

I have to say that is pretty bone headed as the NCO corp is the backbone of every modern Army. It means most of the career enlisted, who have most of the institutional knowledge, will be gone so it will either be become a commissioned officer or don't bother with a career in the Army. A modern Army needs these guys with 20-30 years of training and experience if it wants to retain the real skills which make a modern Army run. Unless they're going to make lower ranked officers function as Sargents then they're pissing in the wind on this one and will have a serious problem with mid-level leadership. There is a reason why even the revolutionary red army kept the evil Imperialist army's NCO Corp intact and that is because it works because NCOs are needed to make an Army function effectively.

Exactly (on the NCOs).

What you describe above, however, is exactly how the Soviet Army worked. When you rely primarily on conscripts serving 2-3 year terms there is no way they can be relied upon to learn and gain experiance in more technical an nuianced military gear/operations. Thats why they had such a larger officer to enlisted ratio, the officers were doing the job of western NCOs.

Given that legacy, I totally understand the want to reduce the officer corps, but only if it is being replaced by a competent NCO community.

We are not dismantling the whole NCO structure, only obsoleting the warrant officer ranks.

That makes sense. They should have said that