Russian Federation National Security framework, and Putin' ineptitude.
A place to post whitepapers pertaining to the the global strategic environment (all theaters including cyber) for assessment and posterity. Feel free to ramble about The Russian Federations Security Strategy, and when security means security, and when it means something else. As well as anything you believe is of importance to the defensive and offensive environment.
2010russia_military_doctrine: carnegieendowment.org/files/2010russia_military_doctrine.pdf (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/2010russia_military_doctrine.pdf)
Russia's 2010 policy and when forgetting what "De-escalation" means.
Russia plans to use a "de-escalate" (to which the language basically allows them to apply the term to anything in the universe) policy as deterrence (in my opinion deterrence to possible responses to what ever the frig Russia feels like doing).
In a nut shell Putins new definition of "de-Escalate" essentially is the equivalent of what "tactical value based strike capability" contributed to an overall balanced Nuclear Strategic posture between US and the USSR.
The latter phrase was "de-escalation", to a lamen it means "Flexible retaliation response capacity". It was the only alternative Retaliatory response to a Russian first strike who's objective WAS NOT to wipe Russia of the planet. It provided a flexible response in both spatial delivery targeting and damage capacity and was the only lesser option to a full retaliatory response.
Russia's framework now allows them to use a Tactical Nuke strike to "De-Escalate" a conflict between CONVENTIONAL forces. In other words, they claim they will "de-escalate" a conventional (everything that isn't nuclear) conflict by by introducing a Nuclear Tactical strike. (A tactical strike is a delivery of a nuclear weapon with the objective of collateral damage minimization while still incapacitating the target).
Let me get that through your head. Russia's counter-intuitive framework states it will De-escalate a conflict in the conventional theater by issuing a tactical strike first, actually introducing nuclear weapons into a conventional conflict where nuclear weapons haven't been employed
Truly, I hope he doesn't doubt the P5's retaliatory credibility.
Amidst Ukraine's destabilization and Putin's determination to blaze a path all the way to Crimea for logistical carrying capacity, I wouldn't be surprised if he's drafting a doctrine even more outrageous.
This thread is open to anyone who would like to discuss Russian vision and the what objectives you believe Russian Security strategy/operations aim to achieve.
I believe Russia, which is largely a gas station run by Russian Organized Crime, seeks to achieve control of all strategic and critical Crude extraction sites around the globe. By doing so, they wish to achieve total control of the energy and its transportation infrastructure in key strategic areas in Asia and Europe. Think of it as an extortion tool...which they'll dangle in the face of whomever Russia needs to 'Negotiate' with.
If The P5+1 (Iran nuclear negotiations with the permanent nuclear powers) ends up failing for us Americans, it may very well lead to a coup replacing Hassan Rouhani with members of the hardliner regime. Congress, in that circumstance, will most likely apply another sanctions regime on Iran as they've stated previously.
This would setup the environment for Russia's infrastructure to carry heaps and heaps of Iranian Oil to Southeast Asia and China and even Japan and South Korea.
It would be VERY unlikely that the international powers would honor American "Sanctions" against Iran. After all, we would all like to open up Iran for investment and rid it of sanctions which negatively affect all economies.
Quote from: Glaucon on December 08, 2014, 07:40:37 PM
I believe Russia, which is largely a gas station run by Russian Organized Crime, seeks to achieve control of all strategic and critical Crude extraction sites around the globe.
I don't see how anyone can think that. Is that even possible?
QuoteIf The P5+1 (Iran nuclear negotiations with the permanent nuclear powers) ends up failing for us Americans, it may very well lead to a coup replacing Hassan Rouhani with members of the hardliner regime. Congress, in that circumstance, will most likely apply another sanctions regime on Iran as they've stated previously.
What does "failing for us Americans" means? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on December 08, 2014, 07:52:33 PM
I don't see how anyone can think that. Is that even possible?
I should have been clearer. By Strategic I meant Russian operational control over critical wells. Critical wells in this context are new wells in the Arctic and the Caspian Sea which aren't "tight" wells.
What does "failing for us Americans" means? ???
[/quote]
Meaning that the negotiations fail. Quite simply if they fail, Iran and US relations will be the worst they ever have been. The US will call for cooperation from other nations in complying with Economic sanctions against Iran, which publicly, Hassan Rouhani will refuse politically using anti West rhetoric etc. He won't stay in power long while the hard-liners use the failed-negotiations and the subsequent sanctions as leverage into power through a new Nationalist public sentiment whilst ousting Hassan Rouhani as a weak leader who capitulated to the west
after his already unpopular negotiations fail.
When the regime changes in the discussed circumstance, you can count on an Iran Nuclear program with emphasized military elements.
Not necessarily directly dangerous . However, acquiring intelligence on their breakout capacity will be feckless even by the Israelis.
In the latter circumstance, the US will be directly involved in a conventional military conflict with Iran.
vca·pit·u·late
Quote from: Glaucon on December 08, 2014, 08:33:49 PM
I should have been clearer. By Strategic I meant Russian operational control over critical wells. Critical wells in this context are new wells in the Arctic and the Caspian Sea which aren't "tight" wells.
What does "'tight' wells" means? ???
QuoteMeaning that the negotiations fail. Quite simply if they fail, Iran and US relations will be the worst they ever have been.
I'm not sure about that.
QuoteThe US will call for cooperation from other nations in complying with Economic sanctions against Iran, which publicly, Hassan Rouhani will refuse politically using anti West rhetoric etc.
How can he refuse sanctions made by other countries? ???
QuoteHe won't stay in power long while the hard-liners use the failed-negotiations and the subsequent sanctions as leverage into power through a new Nationalist public sentiment whilst ousting Hassan Rouhani as a weak leader who capitulated to the west after his already unpopular negotiations fail.
I don't agree, as a failure in the negotiations would mean that both sides refused to make what they think are big concessions to the other side, and I see only those big concessions as something that could be seen as "capitulating to the west".
Quote from: ArMaP on December 08, 2014, 08:54:43 PM
What does "'tight' wells" means? ???
I'm not sure about that.
How can he refuse sanctions made by other countries? ???
I don't agree, as a failure in the negotiations would mean that both sides refused to make what they think are big concessions to the other side, and I see only those big concessions as something that could be seen as "capitulating to the west".
Just because the US issues economic sanctions on Iran, doesn't necessarily mean all of Europe and Eurasia are mandated. The Iran sanctions have largely been an international cooperation, not an international exercise in compliance.
All my statements are simply my understanding of the forecast and are void of perspective argument. In saying that, I don't believe Hassan Rouhani will have shown any real capitulation towards the west. What I'm saying is I believe the Nationalist anti west party in Iran will successfully lay out that narrative. They've already been using outrageous rhetoric against Hassan Rouhani for talking to America.
I think I understand what you mean now, thanks. :)
But I still don't know what you meant by "'tight' wells". :(
^ Think of a well that is generally accepted inside the industry amateur.
Certain wells require drill tooling and rig plumbing to be highly restrictive which in tun yields less volume and does so with persistence.
Thanks. :)
I say we ask Putin to be the next President of the USA. I bet things would really improve around here in a hurry
Quote from: ArMaP on December 09, 2014, 01:49:52 AM
Thanks. :)
No problem!
Quote from: zorgon on December 09, 2014, 02:06:59 AM
I say we ask Putin to be the next President of the USA. I bet things would really improve around here in a hurry
;D ;D It's still beyond me that an ex-KGB who barely stood out in the lower ranks is now the Tsar of Russia and glorified. Albeit the population there is radically coerced, it's still beyond comprehension.
Gazproms board of directors consists of nearly a dozen ex-KGB and FSB officials who were true players. During the late cold war many of these guys had a hand in improving the effectiveness of "philosophical intoxication" or "political psychology". It's rumored that there is atleast one
field agent on the board too.
Just beyond words.
It may not be that he is so great... it's just that who we have is so bad he looks like a god in comparrisson :P