Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


pmc

Senior Member
Registered Member
Drone production in three shifts. this system is complex as it has demonstrated air to air shoot down.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"The new plant for the production of unmanned aerial vehicles in order to fulfill the orders received will soon switch to a three-shift mode of operation. In this connection, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
company continues to recruit personnel. Applicants are offered partial compensation for rental housing, assistance with transport, overalls and VHI policies. For young professionals and workers without experience, the company implements mentoring and training programs," the Kronstadt press service quoted Belykh as saying.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

MarKoz81

Junior Member
Registered Member
A few months ago I made a quick map to study the change of strategic and operational context for Russia after Sweden and Finland join NATO.

2400 x 3400 pixels - zoom in.

NATO-Ru_2v_2400px.jpg

Distances are indicative. The arrows are either 600km mission range for F-16 or 1200km mission range for F-35. The fan-like colored areas are indicative missile ranges with maximum, effective and no escape ranges given for AIM-120C7 (applicable for Meteor) and a theoretical Russian equivalent.

Circles denote theoretical maximum (public data) range for specific missile type for Patriot and S-400. Location does not reflect actual placement of systems in wartime. They illustrate distances in important areas where air defense units are permanently stationed.

Blue and Red dots are main air force bases in the theater.

Current approximate air forces in the Western and Northern Military Districts (here: WMD and NFJC) - first figure is air force, second figure is naval aviation.

Ru planes units.jpg

This is a map of fighter units in Russia (minor errors in Eastern district):

Russian AF in UA.jpg

MiG-31 is effectively useless in traditional air-to-air combat. It is an interceptor designed for countering bombers and cruise missiles. In theory it could attack AWACS and tanker aircraft but it is too outdated, despite a (failed) modernization for that purpose to perform it effectively. This leaves Russia with limited numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM.

Furthermore considering Western and Northern military districts the long term shift in capabilities is staggering:
  • Finland ordered 64 F-35 and will receive them from 2026 to 2030. Currently they have ~60 F-18C/D.
  • Norway ordered 52 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Denmark ordered 27 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Poland ordered 32 F-35 and should receive them by 2030, and will retain at least 32 F-16c into the 2030s.
  • Sweden ordered 60 JAS39E/F but will likely retain also 20 additional JAS39C/D into the 2030s. Currently they have ~90 JAS39C/D
By 2030 five traditionally anti-Russian countries will have 175 F-35s and 90-120 4gen fighters.

By this time Russia planned to have ~80 Su-57s but those plans might not be feasible considering economic situation and sanctions. It is very likely that the production will be further delayed and possibly quite significantly.

In early 2030s the balance will likely be: 175 F-35 + 90-120 JAS39/F-16 vs ~72 Su-35S/30SM + 36 (planned) Su-57 without including US/UK assets or other NATO assets. Su-34s and bombers do not enter the picture as they are not capable enough to defend against enemy air superiority missions meaning that Russia will not be able to use them in their intended role due to enemy numerical superiority.

Furthermore by including Sweden's and Finland's airspace as part of NATO airspace it allows for vectors of attack which were until now impossible - as indicated on the first map. Finland's border with Russia allows deep penetrating strikes on Moscow region and Northern Fleet facilities that won't be protected sufficiently well by air defense assets because the infrastructure and air defenses in the region haven't been upgraded since 1991.

If we include the change of security in the maritime domain the Baltic Sea becomes a "NATO lake" - with two easily isolated weak naval facilities in St Petersburg (Kronshtad) and Kaliningrad (Baltiysk) serving a weak naval force. Baltic Fleet currently consists of:
  • 1 (old) destroyer (Sovremenny) serving as a flag/command ship
  • 2 (old) frigates (Neustrashimy) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Steregushchiy) serving as ASW/AAW vessels
  • 6 (old) corvettes (Parchim) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Karakurt) serving as missile boats
  • 3 (old) corvettes (Nanuchka) serving as missile boats
  • 2 (new) missile boats (Buyan-M)
  • 6 (old) missile boats (Tarantul)
additionally Baltic Fleet maintains 1 (old) submarine (Kilo) for training purposes.

In the coming decade - assuming current orders are maintained - BF will likely have a total of:
  • 3 Improved Kilo submarines,
  • 6 Steregushchiy corevettes,
  • 6 Karakurt corvettes/missile boats,
  • 3 Buyan-M missile boats
  • 1-2 older larger ships 1 retained in service.
Such composition will result in a force marginally more capable than the current Black Sea Fleet.

Improved Kilo is an obsolete design, without AIP which makes it extremely vulnerable in Baltic shallows.
Stereguschiy is a moderately capable corvette that lacks proper air defenses.
Karakurt and Buyan-M are missile boats made to look dangerous by Russian and American propaganda.

The convenient strategic "resource sink" that used to be Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - that is an area that forced NATO to expend resources for non-viable defense while Russia could threaten by staying on the defensive within their own territory - has been replaced by a viable first line of defense backed by full NATO control of sea and airspace. Nothing short of a massed push against the Baltics, impossible now due to the invasion of Ukraine, can achieve any degree of success.

NATO expansion will also have consequences in the Southern Military District i.e. Black Sea region which is currently weakest of the three "main" military districts, with Central and Northern being of secondary rank compared to Western, Southern and Eastern. While NATO forces (excluding Turkey) remain weak Russian air force in the region is also weak and it is likely that some assets will have to be moved to secure the north.

Considering:
  • vulnerable geographical position of Ukraine
  • vulnerable geographical position of Baltic states
  • placement of strategic facilities in European Russia
it would be better for Russia to allow for some delayed entry of Ukraine into NATO than have Sweden and Finland as part of the alliance under the current conditions. This was the equivalent of trading a pawn for a queen without clear gains in a game of traditional (a.k.a 2d) chess.

In historical terms Russia just lost all the gains of the Great Northern War (1700-1721) fought by Peter I which made it an European power. Putin wanted to be like Peter I and instead he lost everything that Peter I gained. Interestingly the most important battle of the war took place in Ukraine - near Poltava in 1709 - where Sweden was weakened strategically in much the same way that Russia is being weakened right now. The war went on for over a decade afterward but the crucial battle that decided the long-term outcome took place in 1709.

This whole thing feels like something out of a Hollywood movie script. History indeed is where the best stories can be found.
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
A few months ago I made a quick map to study the change of strategic and operational context for Russia after Sweden and Finland join NATO.

2400 x 3400 pixels - zoom in.

View attachment 91931

Distances are indicative. The arrows are either 600km mission range for F-16 or 1200km mission range for F-35. The fan-like colored areas are indicative missile ranges with maximum, effective and no escape ranges given for AIM-120C7 (applicable for Meteor) and a theoretical Russian equivalent.

Circles denote theoretical maximum (public data) range for specific missile type for Patriot and S-400. Location does not reflect actual placement of systems in wartime. They illustrate distances in important areas where air defense units are permanently stationed.

Blue and Red dots are main air force bases in the theater.

Current approximate air forces in the Western and Northern Military Districts (here: WMD and NFJC) - first figure is air force, second figure is naval aviation.

View attachment 91932

This is a map of fighter units in Russia (minor errors in Eastern district):

View attachment 91933

MiG-31 is effectively useless in traditional air-to-air combat. It is an interceptor designed for countering bombers and cruise missiles. In theory it could attack AWACS and tanker aircraft but it is too outdated, despite a (failed) modernization for that purpose to perform it effectively. This leaves Russia with limited numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM.

Furthermore considering Western and Northern military districts the long term shift in capabilities is staggering:
  • Finland ordered 64 F-35 and will receive them from 2026 to 2030. Currently they have ~60 F-18C/D.
  • Norway ordered 52 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Denmark ordered 27 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Poland ordered 32 F-35 and should receive them by 2030, and will retain at least 32 F-16c into the 2030s.
  • Sweden ordered 60 JAS39E/F but will likely retain also 20 additional JAS39C/D into the 2030s. Currently they have ~90 JAS39C/D
By 2030 five traditionally anti-Russian countries will have 175 F-35s and 90-120 4gen fighters.

By this time Russia planned to have ~80 Su-57s but those plans might not be feasible considering economic situation and sanctions. It is very likely that the production will be further delayed and possibly quite significantly.

In early 2030s the balance will likely be: 175 F-35 + 90-120 JAS39/F-16 vs ~72 Su-35S/30SM + 36 (planned) Su-57 without including US/UK assets or other NATO assets. Su-34s and bombers do not enter the picture as they are not capable enough to defend against enemy air superiority missions meaning that Russia will not be able to use them in their intended role due to enemy numerical superiority.

Furthermore by including Sweden's and Finland's airspace as part of NATO airspace it allows for vectors of attack which were until now impossible - as indicated on the first map. Finland's border with Russia allows deep penetrating strikes on Moscow region and Northern Fleet facilities that won't be protected sufficiently well by air defense assets because the infrastructure and air defenses in the region haven't been upgraded since 1991.

If we include the change of security in the maritime domain the Baltic Sea becomes a "NATO lake" - with two easily isolated weak naval facilities in St Petersburg (Kronshtad) and Kaliningrad (Baltiysk) serving a weak naval force. Baltic Fleet currently consists of:
  • 1 (old) destroyer (Sovremenny) serving as a flag/command ship
  • 2 (old) frigates (Neustrashimy) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Steregushchiy) serving as ASW/AAW vessels
  • 6 (old) corvettes (Parchim) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Karakurt) serving as missile boats
  • 3 (old) corvettes (Nanuchka) serving as missile boats
  • 2 (new) missile boats (Buyan-M)
  • 6 (old) missile boats (Tarantul)
additionally Baltic Fleet maintains 1 (old) submarine (Kilo) for training purposes.

In the coming decade - assuming current orders are maintained - BF will likely have a total of:
  • 3 Improved Kilo submarines,
  • 6 Steregushchiy corevettes,
  • 6 Karakurt corvettes/missile boats,
  • 3 Buyan-M missile boats
  • 1-2 older larger ships 1 retained in service.
Such composition will result in a force marginally more capable than the current Black Sea Fleet.

Improved Kilo is an obsolete design, without AIP which makes it extremely vulnerable in Baltic shallows.
Stereguschiy is a moderately capable corvette that lacks proper air defenses.
Karakurt and Buyan-M are missile boats made to look dangerous by Russian and American propaganda.

The convenient strategic "resource sink" that used to be Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - that is an area that forced NATO to expend resources for non-viable defense while Russia could threaten by staying on the defensive within their own territory - has been replaced by a viable first line of defense backed by full NATO control of sea and airspace. Nothing short of a massed push against the Baltics, impossible now due to the invasion of Ukraine, can achieve any degree of success.

NATO expansion will also have consequences in the Southern Military District i.e. Black Sea region which is currently weakest of the three "main" military districts, with Central and Northern being of secondary rank compared to Western, Southern and Eastern. While NATO forces (excluding Turkey) remain weak Russian air force in the region is also weak and it is likely that some assets will have to be moved to secure the north.

Considering:
  • vulnerable geographical position of Ukraine
  • vulnerable geographical position of Baltic states
  • placement of strategic facilities in European Russia
it would be better for Russia to allow for some delayed entry of Ukraine into NATO than have Sweden and Finland as part of the alliance under the current conditions. This was the equivalent of trading a pawn for a queen without clear gains in a game of traditional (a.k.a 2d) chess.

In historical terms Russia just lost all the gains of the Great Northern War (1700-1721) fought by Peter I which made it an European power. Putin wanted to be like Peter I and instead he lost everything that Peter I gained. Interestingly the most important battle of the war took place in Ukraine - near Poltava in 1709 - where Sweden was weakened strategically in much the same way that Russia is being weakened right now. The war went on for over a decade afterward but the crucial battle that decided the long-term outcome took place in 1709.

This whole thing feels like something out of a Hollywood movie script. History indeed is where the best stories can be found.

What your analysis means is that any conflict between NATO and Russia will quickly escalate into a nuclear confrontation. The US may not be able to or want to intervene at that time because China would have moved from minimal nuclear deterrent to a full fledge nuclear deterrent position, even though she may likely retain the no first use policy.

Keep me awake at night thinking about it.
 

pmc

Senior Member
Registered Member
MiG-31 is effectively useless in traditional air-to-air combat. It is an interceptor designed for countering bombers and cruise missiles. In theory it could attack AWACS and tanker aircraft but it is too outdated, despite a (failed) modernization for that purpose to perform it effectively. This leaves Russia with limited numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM.
why you think it is useless. this flight was taken before latest upgrades. it is designed for sustained high speeds. I doubt any other aircraft has Mach 10 strike missile integrated. it will strike at ships and bases. this current capability.
your is all future procurement that can only operationally sustainable if Europe survives as economic entity.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How well did it accelerate?

“The aircraft accelerated quickly, as if someone was pushing from behind with enormous brute force. Having flown the MiG-23MF whose Tumansky R-29 (R-29A) engine (123 kN (27,600 lbf) thrust) give it excellent acceleration, the MiG-31 was similar. During our sortie we climbed up to 15 kilometres, and accelerated to max M 2.7. The transition to supersonic and subsequent cruise was very smooth. We also flew at low-level to see the acceleration, but did not hit max speed or go supersonic, though the aircraft had the ability. The aircraft pushes ahead like a rocket.”
The Russians had made some aerodynamic airframe modifications on the MiG-31 for better low altitude handling. We did an acceleration to around 1100 km/h. The acceleration was smooth. I did not notice any buffet or other aerodynamic effects.”
“The best part of the aircraft were the acceleration and the long-range radar. I had been told that aircraft has some very long-range missiles. Also the aircraft had been used to launch satellites. The aircraft had significant weapon carrying capability. However, many modern smaller fighters can carry similar tonnage.”
How loud is it for the crew?

“The cockpit was well sealed. After all, the aircraft was meant to fly at very high altitude and at very high speeds. I flew with the normal Russian inner and outer helmet. Same as used on MiG-21. The noise level was reasonably low. Even at high supersonic speed it was quite comfortable and one could converse with other pilot comfortably.”
The MiG-31 radar was indeed powerful and had a good range. I was demonstrated a target at around 185 km range. Also I did see the look-down capability. Beyond that it was difficult for me to comment. In any case the radar and displays would have improved in manifold ways since then
 

Stealthflanker

Junior Member
Registered Member
despite a (failed) modernization for that purpose to perform it effectively. This leaves Russia with limited numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM.

Funny... as R-37 actually enter service with MiG-31BM's. Like Despite no more Zaslon M there is still Zaslon AM, which current MiG-31BM have.

In early 2030s the balance will likely be: 175 F-35 + 90-120 JAS39/F-16 vs ~72 Su-35S/30SM + 36 (planned) Su-57 without including US/UK assets or other NATO assets. Su-34s and bombers do not enter the picture as they are not capable enough to defend against enemy air superiority missions meaning that Russia will not be able to use them in their intended role due to enemy numerical superiority.

Will NATO bases in North be safe from Russian cruise missile and ballistic missile strike tho ? Considering NATO AEW assets seems unable to catch a stray Tu-141's. and with such large assets, can they suddenly hide their intention to strike ?

Can they assure destruction of Russian ground forces mobile cruise missile launchers ? as the bases in Finland and Sweden are basically a yardstick distance to Russian mainland.


But this is already beyond Russo-Ukrainian war topics.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Major
Registered Member
Neat. How many megatons do Sweden and Finland have?
not just that. Other than Sweden and Finland opening themselves up to Russian retaliation, now instead of selling gas for purely numerical Euros, Russia is 100% plugged into the Chinese industrial ecosystem while destroying the entire basis of European industry - oil and gas.

1280px-Energy_mix_in_Germany.svg.png


Even renewables need gas power dispatching to plug up capacity holes during peak demand (and only gas is possible, because steam turbines take too long to spin up and are best used for base load).

in reality, they will never use those F-35s against Russia. They'll either sit in base until they're scrapped, or they'll be wiped out in the opening salvo of a Russian first strike. Meanwhile, they use energy every day. You also need energy now to produce energy in the future. Without energy now, it limits your energy in the future.

The sad truth for EU is, they maybe, at most, gained a tiny bit of conventional military capability - which is useless against Russia.

They lost massive economic capability.

On the military front, Russia could vastly lower costs by allowing certain components to be outsourced to Chinese machine shops or fabs in a build-to-print OEM setup instead of both designing and fabricating them in house, and allow their in house machine shops to handle only what they're good at or critical IP components. For example, allow landing gear parts and fuselage sections to be fabricated in China while all their in house machine shops handle control surfaces and wings. All this adds up. Saving $1M on landing gear here, $500k on a fuselage section there, and soon you are saving 20-30% of the plane cost.

Once Russia is plugged into the Chinese economic ecosystem it will experience vast growth like Africa and ASEAN.
 

zhangjim

Junior Member
Registered Member
On the military front, Russia could vastly lower costs by allowing certain components to be outsourced to Chinese machine shops or fabs in a build-to-print OEM setup instead of both designing and fabricating them in house, and allow their in house machine shops to handle only what they're good at or critical IP components. For example, allow landing gear parts and fuselage sections to be fabricated in China while all their in house machine shops handle control surfaces and wings. All this adds up. Saving $1M on landing gear here, $500k on a fuselage section there, and soon you are saving 20-30% of the plane cost.

Once Russia is plugged into the Chinese economic ecosystem it will experience vast growth like Africa and ASEAN.
Some people expressed concern about this.It is difficult for Russians to change their strategic thinking. Because Peter the Great's success means that being close to the west is the root of their prosperity and development.
Although Russia can withstand the current economic sanctions,but the legacy of their dependence on western industrial equipment will take some time to show.

And for the Chinese, Russia has a bad record of business reputation.They won't let the Chinese take too many things.The biggest risk facing private investment is not sanctions, but the Russian FSNP.Although this institution no longer exists, it gives Chinese investors a very bad impression.

Government led cooperation is not necessarily easy,the two sides have had a very unpleasant history of cooperation in the construction of oil pipelines.

It is impossible for Russia to hand over its military industrial production to its distrustful neighbors,it's too dangerous, and it shows the world that Russia is in decline.
China will not openly support Russia unless the United States relentlessly uses sanctions to force China to choose Russia.But now there are many national leaders in Europe who don't care whether there is food tomorrow. These liberal Crusaders care more about the United States than their own economic situation.Maybe we can see the formal alliance between China and Russia soon.
 

pmc

Senior Member
Registered Member
Some people expressed concern about this.It is difficult for Russians to change their strategic thinking. Because Peter the Great's success means that being close to the west is the root of their prosperity and development.
I think you misinterpret Peter Great. he was great because he took lands. not some western technology to create prosperity.
For Past 30 years Russia has been diversifying away from Ukraine. ( Despite investments in prior hundreds of years). Ukraine is located west to Russia. for Russia even China is western country as dominant brands until recently are like VW and Apple.
while in Russia it is Lada/Hyundai/Samsung. There was Samsung Monitor presumably assembled in Russia that was in Sukhoi production videos. The point is Russia were avoiding this western products everywhere they could much ahead of time. Samsung has one of the first Research center in Russia and it was Korea that gave i think $3b in early 90s.
when you look history of British Empire, Ottomans, Imperial Japan, United States and even current China. Germany is always present in engineering and industrial production. Russia does not have such history of Globalization. Current situation of de-globalization favor Russia and they will pursue this policy to such extent it can substantially get back its high educated people back.
it is impossible for Russia to hand over its military industrial production to its distrustful neighbors,it's too dangerous, and it shows the world that Russia is in decline.
Russia military production is designed around concept to have 100% control over industrial supply chain and unique Russian requirements. there is very little prospects of joint projects except for parts supply.
 

Yommie

Junior Member
Registered Member
A few months ago I made a quick map to study the change of strategic and operational context for Russia after Sweden and Finland join NATO.

2400 x 3400 pixels - zoom in.

View attachment 91931

Distances are indicative. The arrows are either 600km mission range for F-16 or 1200km mission range for F-35. The fan-like colored areas are indicative missile ranges with maximum, effective and no escape ranges given for AIM-120C7 (applicable for Meteor) and a theoretical Russian equivalent.

Circles denote theoretical maximum (public data) range for specific missile type for Patriot and S-400. Location does not reflect actual placement of systems in wartime. They illustrate distances in important areas where air defense units are permanently stationed.

Blue and Red dots are main air force bases in the theater.

Current approximate air forces in the Western and Northern Military Districts (here: WMD and NFJC) - first figure is air force, second figure is naval aviation.

View attachment 91932

This is a map of fighter units in Russia (minor errors in Eastern district):

View attachment 91933

MiG-31 is effectively useless in traditional air-to-air combat. It is an interceptor designed for countering bombers and cruise missiles. In theory it could attack AWACS and tanker aircraft but it is too outdated, despite a (failed) modernization for that purpose to perform it effectively. This leaves Russia with limited numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM.

Furthermore considering Western and Northern military districts the long term shift in capabilities is staggering:
  • Finland ordered 64 F-35 and will receive them from 2026 to 2030. Currently they have ~60 F-18C/D.
  • Norway ordered 52 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Denmark ordered 27 F-35 and should receive them by 2026.
  • Poland ordered 32 F-35 and should receive them by 2030, and will retain at least 32 F-16c into the 2030s.
  • Sweden ordered 60 JAS39E/F but will likely retain also 20 additional JAS39C/D into the 2030s. Currently they have ~90 JAS39C/D
By 2030 five traditionally anti-Russian countries will have 175 F-35s and 90-120 4gen fighters.

By this time Russia planned to have ~80 Su-57s but those plans might not be feasible considering economic situation and sanctions. It is very likely that the production will be further delayed and possibly quite significantly.

In early 2030s the balance will likely be: 175 F-35 + 90-120 JAS39/F-16 vs ~72 Su-35S/30SM + 36 (planned) Su-57 without including US/UK assets or other NATO assets. Su-34s and bombers do not enter the picture as they are not capable enough to defend against enemy air superiority missions meaning that Russia will not be able to use them in their intended role due to enemy numerical superiority.

Furthermore by including Sweden's and Finland's airspace as part of NATO airspace it allows for vectors of attack which were until now impossible - as indicated on the first map. Finland's border with Russia allows deep penetrating strikes on Moscow region and Northern Fleet facilities that won't be protected sufficiently well by air defense assets because the infrastructure and air defenses in the region haven't been upgraded since 1991.

If we include the change of security in the maritime domain the Baltic Sea becomes a "NATO lake" - with two easily isolated weak naval facilities in St Petersburg (Kronshtad) and Kaliningrad (Baltiysk) serving a weak naval force. Baltic Fleet currently consists of:
  • 1 (old) destroyer (Sovremenny) serving as a flag/command ship
  • 2 (old) frigates (Neustrashimy) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Steregushchiy) serving as ASW/AAW vessels
  • 6 (old) corvettes (Parchim) serving as ASW vessels
  • 4 (new) corvettes (Karakurt) serving as missile boats
  • 3 (old) corvettes (Nanuchka) serving as missile boats
  • 2 (new) missile boats (Buyan-M)
  • 6 (old) missile boats (Tarantul)
additionally Baltic Fleet maintains 1 (old) submarine (Kilo) for training purposes.

In the coming decade - assuming current orders are maintained - BF will likely have a total of:
  • 3 Improved Kilo submarines,
  • 6 Steregushchiy corevettes,
  • 6 Karakurt corvettes/missile boats,
  • 3 Buyan-M missile boats
  • 1-2 older larger ships 1 retained in service.
Such composition will result in a force marginally more capable than the current Black Sea Fleet.

Improved Kilo is an obsolete design, without AIP which makes it extremely vulnerable in Baltic shallows.
Stereguschiy is a moderately capable corvette that lacks proper air defenses.
Karakurt and Buyan-M are missile boats made to look dangerous by Russian and American propaganda.

The convenient strategic "resource sink" that used to be Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - that is an area that forced NATO to expend resources for non-viable defense while Russia could threaten by staying on the defensive within their own territory - has been replaced by a viable first line of defense backed by full NATO control of sea and airspace. Nothing short of a massed push against the Baltics, impossible now due to the invasion of Ukraine, can achieve any degree of success.

NATO expansion will also have consequences in the Southern Military District i.e. Black Sea region which is currently weakest of the three "main" military districts, with Central and Northern being of secondary rank compared to Western, Southern and Eastern. While NATO forces (excluding Turkey) remain weak Russian air force in the region is also weak and it is likely that some assets will have to be moved to secure the north.

Considering:
  • vulnerable geographical position of Ukraine
  • vulnerable geographical position of Baltic states
  • placement of strategic facilities in European Russia
it would be better for Russia to allow for some delayed entry of Ukraine into NATO than have Sweden and Finland as part of the alliance under the current conditions. This was the equivalent of trading a pawn for a queen without clear gains in a game of traditional (a.k.a 2d) chess.

In historical terms Russia just lost all the gains of the Great Northern War (1700-1721) fought by Peter I which made it an European power. Putin wanted to be like Peter I and instead he lost everything that Peter I gained. Interestingly the most important battle of the war took place in Ukraine - near Poltava in 1709 - where Sweden was weakened strategically in much the same way that Russia is being weakened right now. The war went on for over a decade afterward but the crucial battle that decided the long-term outcome took place in 1709.

This whole thing feels like something out of a Hollywood movie script. History indeed is where the best stories can be found.

The West has arms sanction on Russia since 2014. Su-57 entered serial production only a couple of years ago. Highly doubt Su-57 uses any Western component.
 

Top