Putin Orders Huge Arctic Military Exercise
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putin Orders Huge Arctic Military Exercise
A Reuters report:-
Given the slump in oil prices, the West's trade sanctions and the rouble exchange rate, one wonders where the roubles are going to coming from.
"New challenges and threats to military security require the armed forces to further boost their military capabilities. Special attention must be paid to newly created strategic formations in the north," Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said, quoted by RIA news agency.
Shoigu said the order came from Putin, who has promised to spend more than 21 trillion roubles ($340 billion) by the end of the decade to overhaul Russia's fighting forces.
Shoigu said the order came from Putin, who has promised to spend more than 21 trillion roubles ($340 billion) by the end of the decade to overhaul Russia's fighting forces.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
The printers 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ULLI
Age: 43
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck to him. Running an exercise of this scale is unbelievably expensive. They bankrupted themselves last time against Reagan, let them keep spending.
Interesting. I looked at this very issue as part of a CAS Fellowship submission only to be told my ideas were niche and unsubstantiated.
Glad I kept the paperwork now, might resubmit it next time and see if I have any better luck
Edited to add - I forget who said it, but there is a theory in defence planning that says something along the lines of you don't have to be 100% correct, but it's important that you aren't so far wrong that you can't correct mistakes and assumptions when required. I really do think (hope!) the next SDSR is a proper review underpinned by intellectual and strategic rigour rather than cost cutting. As is being seen right now, the assumptions behind the last one are unravelling at a frightening speed.
Glad I kept the paperwork now, might resubmit it next time and see if I have any better luck
Edited to add - I forget who said it, but there is a theory in defence planning that says something along the lines of you don't have to be 100% correct, but it's important that you aren't so far wrong that you can't correct mistakes and assumptions when required. I really do think (hope!) the next SDSR is a proper review underpinned by intellectual and strategic rigour rather than cost cutting. As is being seen right now, the assumptions behind the last one are unravelling at a frightening speed.
Melchett,
I highly recommend reading the 10th Defence Report from the HCDC, as linked to through post #1089 on the MPA UOR thread. In my view the analysis of the assumptions made in SDSR 10 is absolutely spot on.
Well worth the read.
I highly recommend reading the 10th Defence Report from the HCDC, as linked to through post #1089 on the MPA UOR thread. In my view the analysis of the assumptions made in SDSR 10 is absolutely spot on.
Well worth the read.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to worry, we can send an MPA to monitor what's going on . . .
Oh, no we can't, we got rid of them - surplus to requirements apparently.
I could have sworn Soviet operations in the far north were one of the main reasons we had Nimrods in the first place. Silly me.
Oh, no we can't, we got rid of them - surplus to requirements apparently.
I could have sworn Soviet operations in the far north were one of the main reasons we had Nimrods in the first place. Silly me.
Gentlemen, the Russians are preparing to defend the polar ice cap against the global threat of climate change.
This is pure altruism, and a wonderful contribution by a UN member state.
What?
This is pure altruism, and a wonderful contribution by a UN member state.
What?
Party Animal,
Thanks for the pointer, just settled down to read it. Even as early on as the end of para 2 it is blatantly clear that the assumptions on which the last review were based are now so far removed from the reality of the situation we find ourselves in today that to persist in basing policy and capability on them without the evidence to show why they remain a suitable foundation is, in my opinion, tantamount to negligence.
But that's just my opinion.
Thanks for the pointer, just settled down to read it. Even as early on as the end of para 2 it is blatantly clear that the assumptions on which the last review were based are now so far removed from the reality of the situation we find ourselves in today that to persist in basing policy and capability on them without the evidence to show why they remain a suitable foundation is, in my opinion, tantamount to negligence.
But that's just my opinion.
