Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia - Arms program will get $185 bln over 9 years - defense minister
Ria Novosti ^ | 29 May 2006 | Unknown

Posted on 05/29/2006 7:20:16 PM PDT by Romanov

MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will spend almost 5 trillion rubles ($185 bln at current prices) on a state armaments program over the next nine years, the defense minister said Monday.

Sergei Ivanov, who is also a deputy prime minister, told a government meeting with President Vladimir Putin that a ministry committee would consider the program, which will run 2007-2015, at a meeting on June 2.

Ivanov said a draft of the program - which covers modernization and development of Russia's military capability - had been coordinated with security agencies, the Finance Ministry and the Economic Development and Trade Ministry.

"During program development we proceeded from the bases of defense policy, plans to develop the Armed Forces approved by the president, and a complex program of military and technical cooperation," he said.

The deputy prime minister said that unlike the current program, which focuses mainly on research and development, the new one would focus on serial armaments purchases, with 63% of all planned funds likely to be spent in this way.

Ivanov said the program would support the development of Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

"We are switching to complex retooling on separate units, and the planned and complex retooling of the Armed Forces will start from 2007," he said.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Russia
KEYWORDS: defensespending; russianarmy
Talk about money down the drain. Predictions: 1.) Russian military will continue to be weak as long as it is based on conscription; 2.) Conscription problems will continue as young men find new ways to avoid the draft; 3.) The demographic crisis will continue and there will be less Russian men to draft; 4.) A good portion of this money will be lost to graft and corruption; 5.) At least 60% of the funding targets will not be reached.
1 posted on 05/29/2006 7:20:17 PM PDT by Romanov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc; x5452

Ping - money not well spent. I see nothing substantial for developing a professional military and increasing the professionalism of its junior officer corps. More than likely, the fat (literally) generals are salivating at the thought of this program ($$$$$$ in their pockets).

2 posted on 05/29/2006 7:22:12 PM PDT by Romanov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romanov

I agree. The generals just cannot get it through their head how backwards their army is compared to a modern professional army.

3 posted on 05/29/2006 7:31:45 PM PDT by GarySpFc (Jesus on Immigration, John 10:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Actually I think it's worse than that - they KNOW, but as long as they're getting the most benefit out of a broken Army (on the backs of poor conscript kids) they don't care.

4 posted on 05/29/2006 7:34:10 PM PDT by Romanov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Romanov

I agree, but they'll also PROBABLY produce some decent weapons.

5 posted on 05/29/2006 7:39:55 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
I rather doubt that. The infrastructure required to produce truly modern weapons seems unlikely to exist in Russia. And to the extent it might ... well, bureaucracy and corruption will seriously hamper their efforts.

Even at its height, the Soviet Union was not at our level. They are now a shadow of what they were.

6 posted on 05/29/2006 7:43:28 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

i feel for the russian people.

7 posted on 05/29/2006 7:44:36 PM PDT by -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; Mariner

Those weapons won't do much good if they have soldiers who can't operate them. I think this might be another way to pump more money into the defense sector (industry) and the weapons will end up on the market.

8 posted on 05/29/2006 7:50:40 PM PDT by Romanov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Romanov
"Ivanov said the program would support the development of Russia's strategic nuclear forces."

The Peacekeeper

"As a result of weapons reduction treaties, the Minuteman III missile is now the USA's only remaining land-launched nuclear missile."

"The last MX "Peacekeeper" missile was deactivated yesterday (Sept. 19, 2005). Deactivation began in October 2002 after President Bush set a plan in motion in 2001 to reduce the USA's missile forces from 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to follow a similar plan."

"The MX Peacekeeper was the most powerful, accurate missile the USA has ever deployed, capable of carrying up to 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads to any point in the world with unparalleled accuracy."

(The Minuteman III has been operational since 1968.)

9 posted on 05/29/2006 8:27:06 PM PDT by Daaave (The flesh eating jinn of Komari.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romanov

For later.

10 posted on 05/29/2006 8:51:46 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daaave
Very worrying. Why we care about treaties with Russia over strategic missiles is beyond me. We should completely scrape our Russo-centric nuclear policy. Russia is not a competitor. Meanwhile as we reduce and weaken our forces, the Chinese, who actually matter, a building nukes as fast they can. Plus Russia continues to modernize its missile forces. And we just weaken ours. Who is is beyond this suicidal policy? Fortunately Trident is all that really matters, land based weapons are mostly for show. However we need to be beefing up, not decreasing our forces. Like putting MIRVs back on our Minutemen to start. The Minuteman is probably better than the Peacekeeper, while less powerful, the ability to launch on command makes it a better deterrent. And we need a missile defense, no one can compete with us in that area. We need new and more SLBMs, and the B-3 and Hypersoar.
11 posted on 05/29/2006 9:55:15 PM PDT by gafusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson