The Russian economy is on a war footing

With an iron grip on his domestic media, Putin remains popular at home as the ‘strong man’ and a recent poll found 64% of Russians would like a return of the Soviet Union while only 26% wanted an immediate end to the war with Ukraine. Despite growing economic problems caused by Western sanctions and a dramatic drop in oil prices, Putin is committed to a 33% rise in defence spending in 2015. The plan announced in 2012 for an ambitious rearmament program through 2020 is valued at 20 trillion rubles ($500 billion). $132 billion is allocated for upgrades to the navy and in particular the submarine fleet. The effects of this growing investment which has been happening in earnest since 2008, is already being felt on the frontline.

While the Russians almost certainly have no intention of attacking the UK or US, their increasing strength is a powerful diplomatic lever that is being applied by Putin who seeks out weakness and exploits opportunities. Demonstrations of military power in the face of irresolute Western leadership gives Russia confidence to invade and intimidate its neighbours. 

Full Article




My aim is to present the reader with part one of my response to the excellent op -ed from the Save The Royal Navy Campaign. Previously I have had the privilege of chatting with Peter Sandeman about many of the issues that the Royal Navy is facing today.

In part one I will show the reader why I believe the Russia's economic strategy has been designed to prepare the country for a war against NATO. Part two will be my hypothesis on how the Third Battle of the Atlantic will play out.

Russia's economic turmoil can in short be can be put down to Vladimir Putin's regime being a oligarchy, institutional corruption ,population loss and a lack of foreign investment. Space doesn't permit me to do a fuller analysis of the structural issues plaguing the Russian economy.

Putin's regime is not in a position to undertake economic and political reforms even if they desired such a course of action. The industrialists who control the country wealth would not permit any government to threaten their status as the ruling elite.

In the eyes of most western observers Russia is gaining traction towards an economic collapse and the toppling of Putin's government. Such a conclusion in my view defies rational logic because no sound reason exists why Putin would want such an event to occur. If the Russian economy did pancake the likely outcome would be a civil war and Putin ultimate demise.

So if Russia isn't speeding towards a second civil war and they won't cure the terminal patient just what is afoot? Putin has placed the Russian economy on a war footing. Consumer goods and the rest of the domestic economy are being sacrificed so the country's military modernisation programs can be funded. Put simply the only reason for a country to go on a war footing, is well to go to war.

I believe that a historical parallel is to the policy of rearmament undertaken by Nazi Germany in the 1930's . Who some people today might call “bankers” bankrolled the German economy/rearmament . In effect the “bankers” placed a band aid on bleeding that really needed stitches. While equipping the future German war machine the band aid on the German economy that stopped any bleeding until the outbreak of World War 2.

Russia will gobble up the Ukraine and other eastern Europe countries like Estonia. This is and will be very akin to the way Hitler was able incorporate Austria and Czechoslovakia into the Third Reich without firing a shot. In the coming war Russia is set to the fill the role of aggressor in Europe the very role Nazi Germany played in the Second World War.

In five years time the Russians will have completed their program of military modernisation. In my estimation Russian forces will begin there invasion of Poland and Western Europe sometime between 2020 and 2025. The exact timing will depend on how long the band aid holds on the Russian economy;to what degree Russian military commanders wish to conduct training/manoeuvres with the upgraded military hardware and Putin's own personal wishes.

In spite of the fact they lean towards ruling out the notion that Russia intends attacking the UK and the USA , Peter Sandeman and the Save the Royal Navy Campaign will still be in the minority who end up on the right side of history. I do not wish to see the reader devalue the work done by the Save the Royal Navy Campaign because of this article. I would like the reader to consider how important the Royal Navy would be to the very survival of the UK in the event that events do take a nasty turn in the next five to ten years.

The very fact that The Save the Royal Navy Campaign exists is proof that the majority of people have not learned the lessons my grandfather generation paid for in blood during World War 2. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbott shirt fronts himself at the G20

As it is, only 49 per cent of Australians recently surveyed said they were confident in Abbott doing a good job in representing Australia to the international community. Being seen as a coward and a weakling diminishes the PM's ability to exploit the national security issue, particularly when Labor's strategy of sticking closely to the Government on the issue has seen the Opposition successfully minimise any point of differentiation and therefore electoral advantage to be gained.

Story

Only now are the political negatives from Tony Abbott's threat to Vladimir Putin blindingly obvious, and "shirking the shirtfront" as one television newsreader put it, is only part of the problem.

Article

Credit must go to a good friend of mine for the title of this article as it encapsulates how the Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbot fared so poorly at the recent 2014 G20 Summit in Brisbane.

Abbott's opening address to the G20 Leaders Retreat was rambling in nature and failed to condemn Vladimir Putin for the downing of flight MH17 or mention global economic issues which are at the heart of the G-20.

Countless broken election promises and a failure to provide a clear path to returning the federal budget back into surplus has in my view placed the Liberal government re-election chances resting on Abbott being seen as the “Man of Steel” John Howard's “Man of Steel” image that steamed from committing Australian troops to the war in Iraq and his close friendship with George Bush. Tony Abbott's “Man of Steel” image has steamed events in the Ukraine and the Middle East.

In the middle east the rise of the fanatical and brutal Isis in Iraq and Syria has galvanised public opinion against the Al Qaeda franchise. The downing of flight MH17 by Russian backed separatists in the Ukraine killed a number of Australians. Abbott initially meet the expectations of a grieving and out raged nation.

A lot of domestic media and local political attention was generated when Abbot first made the comment that he was going to shirt front Putin at the G20 summit. Members of the media failed to understand or ignored how the comment was aimed squarely building his “Man of Steel” image with voters. Heck the comment would have been worth say two to three percentage points in the polls had Abbott made a good showing at the G20.

For the reasons I have described Abbot's government has a firm mandate to take a strong stand against Putin's regime. By failing to use his opening speech to condemn Russia's role in the conflict in the Ukraine and in downing flight MH-17 to both the global community and the Australian electorate Abbott shirt fronted himself.

So why did Abbott shirt front himself at the G20 and in the process losing political ground international events beyond his control gave him and the rightful moral stand he had taken? Did his advisers have a quiet word in his ear telling him not to make a speech that might be seen as the not the done thing?

Abbott's handicap is that as a career politician he has no military service , little or no private sector experience or other talents to call upon when making political and policy decisions. Abbott gives every indicator as being out of his depth in line with how I would expect most career politician's to fare as Prime Minster. Another leader with more “real world” experience behind them might have ignored any advice to the contrary and asserted the political and moral mandates the turn of international events granted them.