Monday Russian Militaria

And Their Commander Shall Be Russian (or that's what this article ought to be entitled):

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), long regarded by Western military experts as something of a “paper tiger,” will become increasingly active in Central Asia as Russia’s President Medvedev presses for the militarization of the organization. CSTO General Secretary Nikolay Bordyuzha has referred to the creation of “‘a powerful military grouping of five countries in Central Asia.” This may include up to 10,000 personnel, apparently tasked with responding to external threats to the region; but the timing of the announcement, after the war in Georgia and as Russia’s relations with the West continue to be strained, suggests that Moscow is also trying to convey a “signal” to NATO over the region that in the current political climate, however, may be easily misconstrued.

From here.

However, even if they do put together such a force, will it matter? Their weapons, despite the big boost in spending on the military recently are 20 - 30 years out of date:

The 27,000-strong Georgian military is a 40th the size of the Russian military of over one million. Only several thousand solders from each side were directly involved in the war last month, which lasted three days before the Georgian forces were ordered to withdraw. Russia emerged victorious, taking full control of the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; but this short war revealed serious deficiencies in the arming, training, and battle readiness of the Russian military. Last week at a special meeting in the Kremlin on military development, President Dmitry Medvedev announced that new weapons would be procured and developed and soldiers’ pay and battle readiness increased. "We need modern, effective armed forces ...because of recent problems, including Georgia’s aggression and its continued militarization," Medvedev announced. "This is the highest state priority in the coming years."

The Russian military did not have a single spy drone in the sky, did not know for certain where the enemy was, and could not use precision weapons effectively. Until the Georgians retreated, Russian forces could not suppress Georgian artillery. The Russian Air Force did not manage to provide effective battlefield air support or reliable intelligence information because of Georgian anti-aircraft fire that shot down, according to Russian sources, seven bombers, including a strategic Tu-22M3 Backfire. According to the military, the Georgians used Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missiles, obtained from Ukraine (Vedomosti, September 12).

The Russian generals are making no secret of the shortfalls and problems their forces encountered during the invasion of Georgia, apparently hoping that this will help lobby for increases in defense spending. The tactic seems to have been at least partially successful. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced substantial spending increases for 2009. Defense spending is planned at $50 billion, an increase of 27 percent over 2008. National security spending in 2009 will be $43 billion, an increase of 32 percent over 2008. National security includes the budgets of Russia's federal law enforcement, Interior Ministry forces, and intelligence services—the former KGB (Interfax, September 16).

The increases in spending are substantial, but will they help refurbish the military? In 2000 when Putin came to power, defense spending was $5 billion and has grown by some 10 times since then, but the solders who invaded Georgia were armed exclusively with old weapons of Soviet stock, produced in the 1970s or 1980s. Fortunately for them, the Georgians were also armed mostly with the same equipment. Some Georgian weapons were partially modernized, but the Russians outnumbered and outgunned them.

Experts express doubts that the increase in defense spending will result in a major modernization of the military and predict that the money may be misappropriated (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 15). The Russian defense industry today is in a crisis, its technology outdated, its well-trained workforce old and shrinking, and its capability to make new weapons withered away.

From here.

That's just it. The rest of the world moved on. $TECH has incremented a few times since the fall of the soviet union in 1991 - 17 (!) years ago. The Russian forces in Georgia were using largely unupgraded equipment from the 1970s rather than that from the 1980s. They were using some of their "best" pilots and theater level bombers that they had for recon. And they still had it shot down. By Georgia. Georgia!

Any new Russian miltech is not a threat. Russia has far more to fear through its actions than be feared. Except if you happen to be an xUSSR republic. Then there's some fear involved. If the West were to give guarantees, let the Ukrainians or whomever into NATO, or just plain old rapidly upgrade their military, the Russians would be a toothless bear. In fact, that would be a good idea no matter what. Don't make them buy the kit, gift it and the training: it'd bring them in line with NATO standards anyways.

That's really an interesting idea. German Leopards, French Rafale, British Warriors (?), and what have you over five years. A modernized Ukrainian army would be a force to be wary of for the Russians.