- Russian designation 3R-14UKSK-Kh. The fire control system is including. Provided:
- supply in modular plug and play containers, 4 or 8 missiles in each container
- installation
- maintenance
- power supply system
- computing system
- networking system
- means of loading
I have mentioned previously on another thread about something like this.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly they were showing the modularity of a particular ship design where they had the above vertical launch tubes for club and Brahmos and each were fired at relevant targets and then they showed the entire system being removed and another vertical launch system being inserted with Shtil-1 SAMs (Shtil-1 is the vertical launch variant of the SA-N-7 or naval vertical launch SA-11/SA-17 Gadfly/Grizzly SAM).
Looks like an excellent system to add to small and large boats that will allow a variety of loads to be carried.
@garryB
ReplyDeletewould it not be useful if this vls could be retrofitted to the kirov or any upgrading of submarines? as you correctly pointed out it would allow a variety of loads to be carried in return a more multirole capabillity for the platform upgraded.
It is just like you've said Igor,this news goes in the same direction that there is possibility for Ukraine to participate in building of Russian air-carriers!
ReplyDeleteBuilding of Russian aircraft carrier in Ukraine is being lobbied
ReplyDeletehttp://rusnavy.com/news/newsofday/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=10145
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYes, these new vertical launch missile cells contain computer monitoring systems unlike the vertical launch missile mechanisms used originally on the Kirovs which allowed access from inside to the various missiles for maintainence checks.
This means that they can stack a lot more missiles into the hull and it would be much less complicated with no missile magazines or missile handling mechanisms. The missiles wouldn't need to be positioned under the launch hatch as they were with RIF for example and all would be ready to fire.
Of course there is scope for naval versions of the Morfei, Vityaz, S-400 and even S-500 to be fitted to the Kirov in vertical launch cells.
Add to that the new naval gun that the land based Coalition was supposed to be based on and this could really be a very very impressive vessel.
@PAKFA FAN
The Ukraine is Russias neighbour and is not going anywhere. Good ties with neighbours is a good thing as long as it is mutually beneficial.
Off topic (but important I think)
ReplyDeleteIgor do you have any comments on this?
What the hell does this mean?!!!
Is President Medvedev completely turning his back on PM Vladimir Putin and majority of Russians?!
It looks almost like smooth sleazy treachery!?
Why on earth would Russia want to become part of NATO in nay shape or form!!??
--------------------------------------------
"Kremlin-sponsored think tank draws up report proposing Russia's integration into NATO"
....."An alliance option could be integrated in a new treaty on European security already proposed by Medvedev,"....
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=187068
Even If Russia wanted to join NATO I rather doubt NATO would reciprocate. The Russians are clearly not happy with the current defence situation in Europe which currently seems to be everyone vs Russia. The best way to defuse that sort of thinking is either to turn your back on Europe (and probably get stabbed even more in the back) or to start talking to those losers.
ReplyDeletePutin has also talked about a new defence organisation in Europe that is no constrained by the structures of NATO or the EU.
Why join the EU and NATO?
Well it might stop all the criticism from the west... look at the policies of the Baltic states towards their Russian nationals, yet no criticism at all from the EU or NATO.
Yet both organisations seem to think it is their place to educate Russia on what it should do and how it should behave.
Colonial Europe has been doing this for centuries around the globe and what have they achieved?
Thanks GarryB,
ReplyDeleteon your geopolitical elaboration on the subject but I was thinking strictly from military point of view (not concerning EU).
"Even If Russia wanted to join NATO I rather doubt NATO would reciprocate"
Well Danish General Secretary of NATO said exactly opposite from you.
And even British ex General Secretary of NATO has echoed the same words....
They could imagine Russia as part of the NATO..
"The best way to defuse that sort of thinking is either to turn your back on Europe"
Well Russia didn't have to do that cause Europe was ignoring Russia completely in those days when Putin was offering his hand.
Today Europe can't ignore Russia even when they want...
For dialog needs two
(no need for Russia to enter NATO to get new defense organization agreement in Europe)
Also World epicenter is turning to Asia
So Europe & US are starting to become periphery...Russia is Euro-Asian country and can easily move focus to Asia if needed
"Why join the EU and NATO?"
NATO is on the edge of total collapse if Afghanistan campaign fails
And for me personally NATO last actions are criminal
Non provoked attacks on Serbia & Afghanistan are war crimes by same laws and international standards used in Nuremberg.
Hypocrisy of the West in those aggressions and massive "collateral" killing of civilians are so far away from principals they pretend to defend
Not to mention CIA & MI6 direct involvement against Russian Federation in 1st & 2nd Chechen war and all the NATO hostilities through proxy war in Georgia that almost led to world conflict
Last but not least - encirclement of Russia with NATO members and missile shields so opposite of what was promised to Gorbachev and so different from diplomatic sweet talk...
Missile shields in EU are ONLY for Russia
Iran doesn't have such nuke missiles at all
Even simple thought of military alliance with NATO(unless I miss something) is almost complete 180 degrees turn to what was considered to the present day in Russia!
I just can't comprehend that such military politics can suddenly in any possible way be in harmony with past & present military strategy and philosophy of Russian army.
I doubt that Russian high command including military industrial complex would ever accept such radical re-direction unless presented as very, very long and very, very slow process...
Even though I'm not Russian I doubt that Russians themselves would ever accept idea of Russian Army being part of the NATO.
Not even to mention political dimension of that decision that interferes directly with Vladimir Putin's vision of patriotic independent Russia that he tried to rebuild after so many years...
I would hate to see that differences of that magnitude start to grow between PM Vladimir Putin and President Medvedev
==It looks almost like smooth sleazy treachery!?
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would Russia want to become part of NATO in nay shape or form!!??==
- You may be dont remember, but the first time it was Putin, who offered to NATO Russia entering the block in 2002. This sentence has lead many bad sequences including the nervousness in Ukraine and indeed provoked Ushchenko's pro-NATO stance (they feared to be hustled away - by this Russian activity . So I agree with you, that it's bad policy.
to PAK FA fan:
ReplyDeletehowever INSOR institute - has no official status and mostly sponsored from the West, so this report with attributing INSOR's opinion to Medvedev - is the desinformation and psy-op by itself.
Hi Igor ,thanks for your answer!
ReplyDelete---
"You may be dont remember, but the first time it was Putin, who offered to NATO Russia entering the block in 2002."
--
Actually that's exactly what I have mentioned in my answer to Garry.
I think that was Putin's last attempt to forget all the negative things(Chechnya,Yugoslavia) and reach over to the other side.
But as you know the result was absolute humiliation by total ignoring of Russia and Russian interests as an answer to that offered Putin's hand.
Putin's offer was interpreted as pure sign of Russian weakness.
Ever since it is clear that USA in post Cold War world intends to use NATO for instrument of GLOBAL dominance.
And recent "Reset" is just game in the new context of U.S. restricting economic crisis... where US try to play their opponents against each other or playing simply double game between words and actions.
Russia is on the brink of totally losing credibility with her allays if they continue with pro Western acts like accepting sanctions against Iran or even much worse any kind of membership in NATO!
I'm surprised that you didn't see at the end of the article Igor
QOTE;
"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is the chairman of the INSOR supervisory board."
So if President Medvedev is the chairman of the INSOR supervisory board he definitely was involved in the choosing the subject of this analysis before that think tank have even started!
I doubt that they would touch the subject if he was opposed.
The question is also(IF TRUTH)why would Russian president be the chairman of the Institute that is sponsored from the West?!?
Is it possible that (Medvedev INSOR chairman) might be disinformation in Interfax?!
I find that hard to believe ...
I hope that you are right..
I hope that news is nothing but another psy-op.
==So if President Medvedev is the chairman of the INSOR supervisory board he definitely was involved in the choosing the subject of this analysis before that think tank have even started!==
ReplyDelete- Paradoxally it's not true. Indeed they clearly said: 'The report with INSOR's propositions was sent to Kremlin' ( http://k2kapital.com/news/339831/ in Russian). So , it was no a Kremlin's voice behind the report, but the INSOR's voice to Kremlin. THe so called 'Russian liberals' in INSOR are very worried by strong stance towards the West (Ossetia operation, military maneuvers, nuclear issue etc) and urge Kremlin to change the politics.
"(Ossetia operation, military maneuvers, nuclear issue etc)"
ReplyDeleteGeorgian war was red line drown from Russia to US/NATO
South Ossetia was just answer on Kosovo...
Russia had to make strong stand on her last defense of strategic positions that are still left.
Russian influence in Caucasus,Ukraine and Central Asia are essential not only from military point of view but that is simply MINIMUM necessary for the survival of Russia that would otherwise become defenseless!
"Military maneuvers" are essential part of reforms, renewal and gaining self confidence of Russian forces.
"nuclear issue" is Russian Joker and last option of defense
Yes indeed liberals want Russia to capitulate (oil & gas for FREE for the West)
Revival of domination of Russian oligarchs that's what they want
What is real strength of Army and military industrial complex in the balance of power in Russia today?
Will Russia continue military reforms as planned till 2025 and later on?
@PAKFA Fan
ReplyDeleteI think this is all political and nothing military at all.
Right now the main threat to Russia... like it or not... is NATO, simply because it is a purely military organisation that Russia has no direct influence on that has a large number of hostile states within it. (Hostile to Russia that is.)
The best way to deal with it from a military point of view is to retain lots of tactical nuclear weapons... NATO countries value economic development and good standards of living... living with fallout and radiation is not something they will want to risk.
From a political point of view the threat of nuclear weapons is relatively hollow so the best solution politically is to divide.
NATO has always said it is not anti Russian and that if Russia meets its criteria it can join... just not right now.
Consider this Medvedev calling their bluff.
I doubt they would ever let Russia join anyway... it is diplomacy speak, just like WMD means we want to invade, or terrorists means we want regime change and to invade.
NATO officials will of course claim they can see Russia within NATO... if they said otherwise then it would be clear that the purpose of NATO was to oppose Russia. They probably would love to see Russian soldiers going into Afghanistan again and cleaning up their mess for them so they can claim victory too.
Of course as part of NATO Russia would only get one voice so it would be a good way for them to control Russia as well.
ie we had a vote and you lost...
I would love to see Russia turning to Asia, simply because I think they will get a better deal. The West divided the world into the first world (itself), the second world (communist countries of Europe) and the third world (all the victims of colonialism that didn't embrace their colonial power and accept subservience).
Of course the first world is the most democratic and advanced and... well, White. The second world is still white but of the wrong politics and/or religion and the third world is not white no matter what religion or politics they have.
My point is that the west still applies this view of the world and I am sure that those in the third world category would like to deal with people who don't view them that way.
It is this very viewpoint of the world the leads western leaders to think they can tell Russia what to do, like it is somehow superior or holds a senior position.
(Sorry for the political rant Igor and everyone)
Your personal opinions about NATO are the same as mine, though I don't think they are close to collapse. They will blame the enemy for any deaths they cause and sleep soundly at night simply because they really don't care about anything except their own economies and the price of oil.
Perhaps Russia will learn from NATO... make all the promises NATO wants to hear... just don't put it in writing and just refuse to discuss it later on when it is clear what you are saying and what you are doing are two completely different things.
NATO will not expand, US troops will not be based in Eastern Europe, NATO will not expand into former Soviet Republics, it is not about winning or losing the cold war because in this case democracy wins...
The cost alone of redesigning everything to meet NATO standards would simply outweigh any benefits. The loss of sovereignty equally is not worth it. For European countries NATO and the EU gives small weak countries power... it is a gang. For the US it is a base on another continent where it can operate from and it also provides some automatic allies it can use when it wants.
Russia doesn't need to join NATO or the EU to become powerful and it already has bases in Europe.
Russia mentioning the possibility of joining NATO is most likely an attempt to keep NATO divided.
ReplyDeleteI am sure France and Germany and Greece and a few other countries would probably welcome Russia into NATO. I am equally sure that the Baltic states and several other countries including the US would be opposed to such a thing.
Keeping NATO split like that is a good thing for Russia IMO.
GarryB
ReplyDeleteIf Russia tries sawing the seeds of division, than it would be much more probable through actions like buying 4Mistral ships from France than joining NATO or EU...
Russian bilateral (not EU level)cooperation with EU countries like Germany, Italy, France is also action of that type...
But than Russia is not member of WTO and has many east European enemies in EU so its logical
that Russia looks for other level of contacts than - EU level.
Russia doesn't hide to want direct security treaty with EU outside of NATO context
So yes Russia has some direct enemies inside NATO but also NATO in general is seen as enemy
(bombing of Yugoslavia,expansion to ex-Soviet space,missile shield, etc.)
"NATO countries value economic development and good standards of living... living with fallout and radiation is not something they will want to risk."
This theory simply is NOT applicable to some people who decide like lunatic Georgian president(Georgia is NATO candidate) or even Dick Chaney who wanted to bomb Russian troops in Georgia!
"NATO officials will of course claim they can see Russia within NATO"
Not exactly that all came with "Reset"& Obama...I remember the time of George Bush when
anti-Russian propaganda was extremely strong and nobody would say such thing!
"They probably would love to see Russian soldiers going into Afghanistan again and cleaning up their mess for them so they can claim victory too."
I definitely agree with that.They have already 40 countries there and love the idea of Globalist army in the service of few who control the Western world and dream about total world control.
Problem is that Russia & China are not under the control of those people
I would love to see Russia turning to Asia, simply because I think they will get a better deal.
I think that Russia eventually will turn to completely Asia and SCO will probably grow bigger & more solid in the future (if wars don't stop that)
The West divided the world into the first world (itself), the second world (communist countries of Europe) and the third world...
This is becoming outdated.
1st world is shrinking in strength with last economic set back specially in US & UK
BRIC countries led by China are about to become economic locomotive of the world and military WORLD powers passing above countries like France or UK
"I don't think they are close to collapse"
well even some of them have said that NATO might collapse if Afghanistan war is lost
For me more probable is that EU countries like
Germany, Italy and others will abandon U.S.
when U.S. economic strength continues to decline
that will provoke collapse of the NATO as end result
EU & Gemany can always make another
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Russia to obtain that objective (renouncing NATO U.S. protection)
While UK (and other Anglophones)will stick with US no matter what....
We live in the times of big changes in the next 10 years world will change completely from world we know...
I hop that Russia will have the wisdom to persist with building SCO together with China (and hopefully India soon also) to assure peace in Asia.
To protect their peace in the very troubled times that are cumming soon.
@ GarryB
ReplyDelete"NATO....has a large number of hostile states within it"
...............
Yes
Here is an example of hostile state (Scotland in ARCTIC BATTLE ???!! )
Some NATO countries TRY HARD to pick fight with Russia over Arctic yet Russia is HUGE and has majority of proven gas&oil reserves on her side of Arctic already!
WHY would Russia risk conflict with NATO to get more?!!?
Fore disputed territories there are UN & international treaties so all this warmongering is for what really?!
ARCTIC BATTLE BETWEEN SCOTLAND AND RUSSIA
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/197663/-Arctic-battle-between-Scotland-and-Russia/
The purchase of Mistral has nothing to do with politics at all... the Greek purchases of S-300s and TORs and the French purchases of laser guided artillery shells like Krasnopol also make no difference to NATO.
ReplyDeleteLots of NATO and non NATO countries (like Georgia and the Ukraine) might complain about the Mistral deal but have no power to stop it.
Just talking about Russia joining NATO you can make note of who agrees and who opposes... it is all about reactions. A strong reaction of no from a country that keeps saying Russia could become part of NATO is a strong indicator that country is all talk and really perceives Russia as an enemy.
Otherwise trade is simply trade... Russia has long been an energy supplier to Europe and apart from when the Ukraine interferes they have been a reliable supplier and have never used energy supply as a political weapon. (Despite what western countries complain about if the energy was going the other way the stoppages would be plenty and occur when Russia displeased the west for some reason... the west likes to wield the stick).
Remember however there are threats and there are enemies. NATO as a military power block will always be a threat as long as Russia is outside of it. There are certainly enemies of Russia within NATO but also countries that have much better relations.
Since the end of the cold war NATO has said that it is possible for Russia to join in the future. During the first Bush admin it was mentioned by Baker... who said a lot of things that have proven to be not worth the paper they weren't written on.
The western view of first, second and third worlds was always outdated... and arrogant BS.
Most westerners still see africa, asia, and central and south america as the third world.
It is repulsive.
Regarding collapse I think NATO will change and perhaps stop cleaning up after the US in its unilateral war of terror, you are either with us or you are one of the terrorists.
@PAK FA Fan
ReplyDeleteSorry, you misunderstand what I was meaning regarding hostile states within NATO.
I meant states within NATO that are still hostile to Russia. The Baltic states leap to mind, and the former eastern block countries previously mostly Poland, though there has been a change attitudes there.
GarryB
ReplyDelete"Sorry, you misunderstand what I was meaning regarding hostile states within NATO"
No I didn't misunderstand, UK is definitely on the enemy list of Russia among EU countries. With Baltic states,Poland,UK and even Romania ever more lately...
All oligarchs (stolen money) that didn't go to Israel is in UK.
UK is one of EU anti-Russian epicenters(calmed down little bit with "Reset")
GarryB
ReplyDelete"The purchase of Mistral has nothing to do with politics at all"
-----------------------------
Oh yes it does, specially to divide NATO, also to get another big EU country on close bilateral relations with Russia.
Already on the list are Germany & Italy ....
Also to deepen military cooperation with Thales & SAFRAN.
The rest I wouldn't touch it,
with comments simply be cause it's to complex And goes in pure geopolitics not military aspect of problem.
We are already to much of topic be cause of me...
I'll stop now.........
---------
Regarding collapse I think NATO will change and perhaps stop cleaning up after the US in its unilateral war
-------------
Sorry I just can't see this happening soon..
EU is not in Afghanistan for their interest and it costs lot of their money and soldier lives & it is very unpopular in EU.
If numbers of killed continues to grow many EU countries will abandon U.S. in Afghanistan....
That might shake NATO even more than Afghan defeat....
Holland is out already....
Relations between Russia and France have always been better than with other parts of Europe, except during that Napoleon nonsense... :)
ReplyDeleteThe Russians are licence producing French thermal imagers and comms systems in their tanks and I would expect the Russian Army might get some French electronic help with their drive to make the Russian Army Net centric.
The Russian Navy has often had ships built in foreign countries like Icebreakers and landing ships, it is just the first time they have bought a major vessel from France, but then that is mainly from the shock they got from Georgia in 2008 where they wanted to use their naval infantry and found their quick response forces lacked major transport... just like their airforce found they lacked unmanned recon assets (which they solved by going to Israel because Israel makes good UAVs and exports them to a lot of countries). The Army found they had problems with command and control and are dealing with that too.
The simple fact is that they identified a problem (lack of an Ivan Rogov type vessel) and looked around for a modern solution and found the Mistral fit the requirements (with a few modifications of course). What they didn't do was sit down and think of a way to stick it to NATO and decided they would buy something French.
The fact is that Russia buying products from EU countries should not effect NATO. The Mistrals will be Russian manned and operated. German light armour will likely be applied to new Russian vehicles too. Some forces within Russia might use Italian light vehicles as well.
It is not an attempt to split NATO... NATO has always been split in different ways on different issues.
It is more than the EU or NATO in Afghanistan.
New Zealand has had forces there for quite some time, my nephew even did a tour there, but our mission is not to hunt Taleban in the south, it is to build infrastructure in the north and to help improve things for the people there. Australian forces and many others are there to that are not NATO or EU.
At the end of the day the US said it would go it alone if it had to.
We will see.
The best solution for Afghanistan is a stable peaceful country, I think perhaps splitting it in two halves might be part of a solution, but then where to stop... The problem is that the lines in that region were drawn by colonial powers dividing up the known resources amongst themselves and did not take into account the people living there.
We are getting OT so I will agree to stop too.
Thanks to Igor for not objecting, I do appreciate this forum and don't want to abuse your goodwill. :)
Yes Putin has just signed something with Israel for license production of Israel UAV's
ReplyDeleteand they'll offer to Israel Russian "laser & space technology" in their military tech exchange with Israel.Of course they didn't give any details....
But this might be surprise for you(French-Russian drones)!
From RIA-News-french section (Google translate)
--------------------
MOSCOW, September 8th - RIA Novosti
On the same subject
The Russian and French Ministries of Defense are creating working groups composed of experts to draft a plan of military cooperation for 2011, announced Wednesday that journalists Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.
"During talks in Paris, we agreed to create over the next two weeks of working groups to draft a plan of military cooperation for 2011 to be busier than 2010. These groups will also discuss cooperation issues Military and technical. The groups will include written by the commanders of arms or by their deputies, that is to say by people with the power of decision, "said the Russian minister at the end of the 9th meeting of Council of French-Russian cooperation on Security held in Paris.
In recalling the military and technical cooperation, the minister said that "the French side expressed interest. We have offered to cooperate in establishing joint ventures on the basis of our shipyards. If we manage to agree on the purchase Mistral, both parties will accumulate valuable experience through such cooperation, "Serdyukov said.
He said it would broaden the scope of cooperation, particularly in the field of construction drones. "The French side has already submitted its proposals in this area," said the minister.
http://fr.rian.ru/defense/20100908/187383575.html
@GarryB
ReplyDelete"German light armour will likely be applied to new Russian vehicles too. Some forces within Russia might use Italian light vehicles as well."
Yes I know,I'm enthusiast and well informed one
I know all the stuff you've mention.
IVECO is 3-4 times more expensive than "Tiger", yet Russia has intention to license produce about 1700 and buy them for their army
But to me sounds more like way to acquire "German armour" production technology for which IVECO has license
"it is to build infrastructure in the north and to help improve things for the people there"
Oh common Garry I'm not child that is jut public relations campaign to win "hearts & minds" of local population and official propaganda
The true reason for NATO & allays to be there is U.S. pipelines!
Pipelines for Caspian gas & oil are ONLY true reason why people get killed there !
"At the end of the day the US said it would go it alone if it had to"
If things get worse for U.S. economy I think that Germany-EU will dump U.S. and try to create Euro-Army that will lead in creation of
Euro-Confederation, a new country, new super power (without UK of course)
But I don't think that Anglophones will ever dump U.S.(UK,Aussie,Kiwi,Canada,Ireland)
You'll stick together
-----------
"The best solution for Afghanistan is a stable peaceful country"
Funny they HAD exactly that before you came in with the war....
No it'll not be "stable peaceful country" but another U.S. colony.
----------
"I think perhaps splitting it in two halves might be part of a solution, but then where to stop..."
To "split" a country?!
I have horror of this kind of neo-colonial talk.
Why do you talk like that if you are not from U.S. or UK ?!
You from the "West" have habit to cut the countries like their people are non existent...
The only who have right to "split" country are Afghans themselves!
That's exactly why U.S. is hated in the world and is Empire in decline like UK was before...
But like you say "where to stop" I agree with you that you can't see where to stop...
And that's huge problem.
END of off topic posting for me also...
Thank you Igor for letting us into this off topic excursion!
@PAKFA Fan
ReplyDeleteThanks for that article.
The IVECO might be 3-4 times more expensive than the Tigr but the Tigr has a foreign engine so "licence producing" an IVECO means everything will be made in Russia and therefore technically Russian. Would be cheaper and easier to licence produce the engine used in the Tigr but the company that makes it has ties to the US and they refused.
The programme run by the NZ forces in Afghanistan is purely propaganda I agree, but we are not there killing Afghans, we are fixing water supplies and building schools and hospitals. The work being done by NZ forces might be classed as propaganda but it is of more value than any military strike so far by the US and UK forces.
The US is there because of minerals and oil pipelines and probably also a bit of arrogance to say that the Soviets and the British Empire has failed in Afghanistan but we can do better.
They ask for NATO support but it will be a US victory or a NATO defeat. :|
I think a Euro army without Britain would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will do very much because without Britain and the US to drag them into scraps around the place they will focus more on European security... which is a given anyway.
The British dumped New Zealand a long time ago and we still have trouble selling dairy products in the EU. The US dumped us from ANZUS because of our anti nuclear policy and their policy of neither confirm nor deny with their warships. (BTW a recent revelation that one of their nuclear powered ships was leaking nuclear waste is vindication of our stance...)
BTW I said the best result will be a peaceful stable country... I never said they were going to get that or that the US even wanted that.
Regarding my talk of splitting the country, I am not a colonial, I am the opposite. The problem was that the colonials drew the lines on the maps we use today and they were drawn up to divide the known material wealth of each region. If the lines were drawn along ethnic lines then there would be a line through the centre of Afghanistan separating the Pashtuns but the new country would also include much of Pakistan. Just like redrawing the map in the Middle East would have to include Kurdistan which includes northern Iraq and parts of Turkey and Iran and Syria. Iraq could be divided into three with the north part of Kurdistan with a Shia area that could be combined with Iran and a Sunni area that could be part of Saudi Arabia. The thing is that the colonial powers liked their colonies smaller and more manageable. Imagine the difficulty is getting cheap oil from the region if One Arab could unite all the arab countries into one? The lines on the map in the Middle East were drawn up just after WWI by Britain and France to divide up colonies of the losing powers of WWI like Germany. Royal families were created and generally the minority were given power to rule which kept them loyal to the colonial power that gave them control. Hense the minority Sunni in Iraq rule the Majority Shia muslims. This method of control resulted in the awful situation where at the end of WWII the European colonial powers had to pardon the Japanese for their warcrimes to get their cooperation to "manage" their Asian colonies because they lacked the manpower to do it. The result was the colonies revolted and sought support... support the Soviets were glad to offer... the west sees Vietnam and Korea and Cuba etc as wars of communism but really they were people getting out from under the colonial yoke.
Rant over... :)
I think a Euro army without Britain would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will do very much because without Britain and the US to drag them into scraps around the place they will focus more on European security... which is a given anyway.
The British dumped New Zealand a long time ago and we still have trouble selling dairy products in the EU. The US dumped us from ANZUS because of our anti nuclear policy and their policy of neither confirm nor deny with their warships. (BTW a recent revelation that one of their nuclear powered ships was leaking nuclear waste is vindication of our stance...)
BTW I said the best result will be a peaceful stable country... I never said they were going to get that or that the US even wanted that.
Regarding my talk of splitting the country, I am not a colonial, I am the opposite. The problem was that the colonials drew the lines on the maps we use today and they were drawn up to divide the known material wealth of each region. If the lines were drawn along ethnic lines then there would be a line through the centre of Afghanistan separating the Pashtuns but the new country would also include much of Pakistan. Just like redrawing the map in the Middle East would have to include Kurdistan which includes northern Iraq and parts of Turkey and Iran and Syria. Iraq could be divided into three with the north part of Kurdistan with a Shia area that could be combined with Iran and a Sunni area that could be part of Saudi Arabia. The thing is that the colonial powers liked their colonies smaller and more manageable. Imagine the difficulty is getting cheap oil from the region if One Arab could unite all the arab countries into one? The lines on the map in the Middle East were drawn up just after WWI by Britain and France to divide up colonies of the losing powers of WWI like Germany. Royal families were created and generally the minority were given power to rule which kept them loyal to the colonial power that gave them control. Hense the minority Sunni in Iraq rule the Majority Shia muslims. This method of control resulted in the awful situation where at the end of WWII the European colonial powers had to pardon the Japanese for their warcrimes to get their cooperation to "manage" their Asian colonies because they lacked the manpower to do it. The result was the colonies revolted and sought support... support the Soviets were glad to offer... the west sees Vietnam and Korea and Cuba etc as wars of communism but really they were people getting out from under the colonial yoke.
I think a Euro army without Britain would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will do very much because without Britain and the US to drag them into scraps around the place they will focus more on European security... which is a given anyway.
The British dumped New Zealand a long time ago and we still have trouble selling dairy products in the EU. The US dumped us from ANZUS because of our anti nuclear policy and their policy of neither confirm nor deny with their warships. (BTW a recent revelation that one of their nuclear powered ships was leaking nuclear waste is vindication of our stance...)
BTW I said the best result will be a peaceful stable country... I never said they were going to get that or that the US even wanted that.
Regarding my talk of splitting the country, I am not a colonial, I am the opposite. The problem was that the colonials drew the lines on the maps we use today and they were drawn up to divide the known material wealth of each region. If the lines were drawn along ethnic lines then there would be a line through the centre of Afghanistan separating the Pashtuns but the new country would also include much of Pakistan. Just like redrawing the map in the Middle East would have to include Kurdistan which includes northern Iraq and parts of Turkey and Iran and Syria. Iraq could be divided into three with the north part of Kurdistan with a Shia area that could be combined with Iran and a Sunni area that could be part of Saudi Arabia. The thing is that the colonial powers liked their colonies smaller and more manageable. Imagine the difficulty is getting cheap oil from the region if One Arab could unite all the arab countries into one? The lines on the map in the Middle East were drawn up just after WWI by Britain and France to divide up colonies of the losing powers of WWI like Germany. Royal families were created and generally the minority were given power to rule which kept them loyal to the colonial power that gave them control. Hense the minority Sunni in Iraq rule the Majority Shia muslims. This method of control resulted in the awful situation where at the end of WWII the European colonial powers had to pardon the Japanese for their warcrimes to get their cooperation to "manage" their Asian colonies because they lacked the manpower to do it. The result was the colonies revolted and sought support... support the Soviets were glad to offer... the west sees Vietnam and Korea and Cuba etc as wars of communism but really they were people getting out from under the colonial yoke.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to say is that the countries, especially in the ME, are artificially created countries based on western concepts. For years the ME was just Arabia on western maps then in the 20th century all these countries appeared structurally based to suit western colonial powers.
Sorry... Igor and everyone... I will shut up now about the politics stuff.
ReplyDeletea bathing ape
ReplyDeletehermes bag outlet
bathing ape
supreme shirt
off white jordan 1
spongebob kyrie 5
kyrie 8
palm angels outlet
supreme sweatshirt
golden goose outlet