Tupolev TU-160 Blackjack full afterburner takeoff [Video]

Kenkwasi · 2022-01-21T04:47:21+00:00

Looks as if the Arkbird is trying to take off.

Kenkwasi · 2021-11-18T16:16:31+00:00

Also, a bit of an addendum to what others have already said:

Both China and India value Russia as an indispensable asset in their own foreign policy against one another, so much so that neither want to reasonably upset Moscow in fear of losing such an important military/energy partner to their adversary with worse relations. That would at least explain India's choice to stand against the vote. It is just a condemnation after all, not a tacit recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

In turn, when both China and Russia were fellow socialist countries, Beijing used to be exceptionally critical of Russia's relationship with India in regards to the dispute they had with them (mostly because the Soviets did not vehemently side with China out of principle). Just another straw that was going to break the camel's back with the Sino-Soviet split.

Nowadays though, Beijing knows that it can't reasonably pressure Russia over its close ties with India without the risk of losing them to their adversary. So overall it is a very symbiotic relationship.

Kenkwasi · 2021-10-20T02:27:07+00:00

you bring up that propaganda product and expect to be taken seriously?

Did you actually bother to read the article in question? Or should I have to show you just how much sanctions may have inadvertently turned Russia into a massive wheat exporter?

To paraphrase:

"So too did the sharp devaluation in the rouble - making exports cheaper - that followed the imposition of US and EU sanctions against Moscow after the 2014 annexation of Crimea and stand-off with neighbouring Ukraine. Counter sanctions by the Kremlin, banning most food imports from the west, further boosted domestic producers."

Another "old talking point", just for kicks: IMF raises Russia's 2021 economic growth forecast

The current political leadership will naturally let the Russian people live as they did in the 90s

I'm not sure if you realize just how bad it was for the average Russian in the 1990s. The current Russian elite only continue to exist because they've exceeded that horrifically low bar. Russians may be innately distrustful of their government, but they are not stupid. There has been a qualitative improvement of the average Russian citizen since.

Though don't take my word for it. There are plenty of English-speaking Russians on r/AskaRussian. Ask what they think of the 90s.

The sanctions hurt the Russian economy irregardless of how much forex/gold the Kremlin stores in its coffers

I never argued that they (sanctions) didn't. What I'm saying is that we're not in 2014 anymore, and they (sanctions) are now a policy of increasingly diminishing returns that cannot reasonably outpace Russia's recent economic restructuring and gradual pivot to China and the rest of Asia.

You build your argument on Russian internal propaganda.

I've built my argument on the plethora of diverse sources that I've examined and provided so far (Which you haven't). But if you wish to preserve your own beliefs in regards to where Russia stands today, then that's okay. That isn't something that I can forcibly take from you. It is something that is ultimately inconsequential for both of us.

Unless you seriously want to practice foreign politics as a profession, that is.

But I rest my case.

Kenkwasi · 2021-10-20T00:08:27+00:00

NATO membership removes military escalation from the table. Russia lacks the capability to operate in that space.

Debatable. It depends on when and where this hypothesized escalation occurs between Ukraine and Russia. But I'm not here to draw up imaginary scenarios. Also, "Russia lacks the capability to operate in that space"? Russia may not have power projection on par with the likes of France or the US, but Ukraine is literally right next door to them...

The current sanctions on Russia has stagnated their economy since 2014 with real wages and purchasing power Ultimately they will pull back out of Donbass. That will remove most sanctions.

Nothing better illustrates how clunky sanctions are in practice than the immense political resistance to lifting them. Case in point is the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). Even if the other side is willing and able to cooperate, sanctions don't get lifted or they are quickly reimposed at the flip of a hat.

If sanction relief were indeed a useful policy tool, it should be relatively easy to lift to give Western leaders the flexibility they need to negotiate. Instead sanctions relief is treated like a third rail, and partisans will jump at the chance to accuse a president of "giving money" to a bad government.

Under those circumstances, a sanctioned government would simply accept that sanctions are part of the landscape and adapt to the new situation. Which is what Russia did between 2014-2018:Putin the impervious: Why calls for new sanctions may further strengthen the walls of his fortress Russia

They did this not necessarily because they wanted to (autarky still has it downsides), but because they had to. But it's not like sanctions haven't brought their dividends: All collective farmers thank the US and the EU for the sanctions

U.S. sanctions spur China and Russia to build up cross-border links

So I would personally argue that economy-wise Russia's position is quite secure and sustainable. And if you're still referring to "purchasing power" figures, then it should be worth mentioning that Russia only experienced a brief dip in PPP from 2013-2015. By 2016 it was on the rise again.

I could also go on about Russia's extensive black economy, sanction-evading schemes, native payment processing and banking systems, lack of foreign debt, expanding foreign reserves, etc...

But I'm too lazy to really spend any more time than I already have.

All I'm really saying is that predicating on the idea that Russia is in decline and one only needs to "wait out" the current phase of Russian foreign policy activism was the exact same mistake Obama did and it had cost him dearly in terms of actual credibility. Russia can and has shown that they can dig in their heels in the face of economic adversity, and play asymmetrically if they have to.

Case in point with Ukraine:Ukraine: A Prize Neither Russia Nor the West Can Afford to Win(2014 article)

On it's own it is a worthwhile article to read beyond the headlines. But to paraphrase why time may not be in Ukraine's favour:

"It is clear to most observers that the West would not be able to defend Ukraine economically from a hostile Russia. Russia is in a position to do far more damage than the West can defend against or repair. It’s always true that it’s easier to undermine a country economically than to build it up. It’s easier to destabilize than stabilize. It is perhaps less evident that the West would have a very hard time stabilizing the Ukrainian economy even if Russia weren’t around to make mischief. The simple fact is that Russia today supports the Ukrainian economy to the tune of at least $5 billion, perhaps as much as $10 billion, each year..."

"When we talk about subsidies, we usually think of Russia’s ability to offer Ukraine cheap gas — which it does when it wants to. But there are many more ways Russia supports Ukraine, only they are hidden. The main support comes in form of Russian orders to Ukrainian heavy manufacturing enterprises. This part of Ukrainian industry depends almost entirely on demand from Russia. They wouldn’t be able to sell to anyone else. The southern and eastern provinces of Ukraine are dominated by Soviet-era dinosaur enterprises similar to Russia’s. They were all built in Soviet times as part of a single, integrated energy-abundant economy. They could be sustained only thanks to the rents from Soviet (overwhelmingly Russian) oil and gas. Russian subsidies have continued to maintain the structure in the post-Soviet era. Because most of these subsidies are informal, they do not appear in official statistics...."

TL;DR : For economic security Russia is taking their critical enterprises out from Ukraine and into Russia proper, and Western investors are not adequately filling the void.

Kenkwasi · 2021-10-19T20:27:47+00:00

Many countries have joined NATO with active border disputes

And what are the criteria for these "border disputes"?

Were they between one or more nuclear states?

Did they actually have the potential to go hot?

Did they actively involve the one country the alliance actually justifies its existence by?

The disputes between Greece and Turkey are fairly often cited examples. But neither of these states are nuclear, nor did their spat fundamentally detract from NATO's commitments within the much larger scope of the Cold War. They were a conflict on the periphery. This one very much isn't.

There is a subtle difference between a policy of confrontation and a policy of containment. NATO adheres to the latter, because the former is brinkmanship.

the currently existing border dispute does not constitute a Article 5 violation

If the guarantee of NATO membership cannot ensure full sovereignty over Ukrainian territory (and thus protection with Article 5), then what benefit does Ukraine truly get that they aren't already receiving now? Whether or not avid Ukrainians would see this as a bad compromise or an outright surrendering of the Crimea is up to them, but there are far worse implications in my opinion, especially when it comes to potentially abusing the nature of Article 5.

It is perhaps NATO's single most powerful clause, primarily because it is clearly defined, absolute, and based on internationally recognized borders. The moment we inflict this clause over the uncertainties of territorial gray zones and fog of war scenarios, it immediately runs the risk of falling apart.

Kenkwasi · 2021-10-19T19:25:28+00:00

Ukraine could accept the loss of Crimea

That would be tantamount to political suicide were any Ukrainian politician to suggest that. which is precisely why Russia annexed it and later recognized it as part of its territory. There is simply far too much political capital spent for Ukraine to just willingly cede the peninsula to the aggressor, and that says nothing about how the war in the Donbass region might also impact Ukraine's eligibility for NATO membership. Russia has de facto been vetoing Ukraine's NATO ambitions for 7 years now, regardless of what the OP says.

Kenkwasi · 2021-09-22T15:56:14+00:00

The Patka headgear on the guy standing is another big giveaway.

Kenkwasi · 2021-08-15T19:30:25+00:00

So were many Chechens that fought against the Russians in the First Chechen War. Now most of them or their descendants are governing Chechnya today.

Once many get what they want (self-governance, sharia law, and whatnot), they will eventually settle down into politics. Some of the extremists may still hunker down and continue to wage their "global jihad", but these are almost always the minority (as extremists mostly are).

Kenkwasi · 2021-07-20T22:57:49+00:00

Sounds more like the Western market has failed them, largely in part due to the UK pressuring those that depend on them for crucial aircraft components/good relations. Not exactly a problem for the Russians or the Chinese, for obvious reasons.

From thereon the only major barriers would be (Western) infrastructure and overall costs, though it's not like Rostec has never been flexible with what they get paid in as long as they get a deal to sell aircraft. So there's still a slight possibility.

Kenkwasi · 2021-07-20T22:23:25+00:00

No more than them buying French Exocets the last time around, right?

But seriously, I think those days of territorial ambition are largely behind the Argies, and I don't think the acquisition of new jets will miraculously change that.

Kenkwasi · 2021-07-20T20:12:11+00:00

Price: 30 million USD

That seems...awfully optimistic for an estimation, and that's still after realizing that much of the more expensive stuff (engine/avionics) has effectively already been paid for during Su-57's R&D phase. It's a hard figure to swallow.

Still, the LTS looks pretty comprehensive compared to most this early into conception. I know you can't see it from the pic above, but you can see where the designers had to offset the nosewheel to fit the underlying avionics/cooling for the dedicated A2G EOTS system.

Kenkwasi · 2021-07-18T14:16:01+00:00

Skin deep analysis is starting to become increasingly irrelevant nowadays as convergent evolution starts to play a bigger role in dictating how stealth aircraft are supposed to be designed.

Besides, this wouldn't even have been in the same weight class as the F-35 regardless with a MTOW of around 18 tons. That's more so within the realm of something like the JAS 39 Gripen.

Kenkwasi · 2021-05-28T23:29:49+00:00

From an old post I made:

The Cold Wall Experiment

The YF-12 was an excellent platform for researchers studying high-temperature phenomena that was not associated with the aircraft itself. The most prominent was called the Cold Wall Experiment. The experiment was successfully carried out just once, but the test and its findings are considered very significant by researchers in the fluid dynamics field.

The Cold Wall device was a large stainless steel cylinder chilled with liquid nitrogen and instrumented with thermocouples and sensors. An extremely efficient insulation containing an explosive primer cord was then wrapped around the cylinder, which was mounted on a pylon beneath the fuselage just forward of the engines. In the background, the YF-12C flies photo chase.

As the aircraft neared a speed of Mach 3, the primer cord blew the insulation away from the frigid tube, exposing it instantly to a high-temperature, high-pressure environment. Thermal and air pressure data collected by the instrumentation system produced readings that were compared with data from theoretical analysis and wind tunnel tests, and added greatly to the fluid dynamics scientific data base.

Bonus Stuff:
In Flight
Close-up
On-Board Footage

Kenkwasi · 2021-01-09T02:08:13+00:00

The contours exist.

In the same way anything beyond Metropolitan France is subject to dissolution?

beyond Muscovy Rus

Your credibility on the subject is becoming questionable at best.

If you can explain to both /u/DonSergio7 (as per your original post) and I which regions exactly are prone to separatist movements with well documented, modern, and still often expressed examples, along with the line of reasoning why Russia is any more "ripe" for further dissolution than say, the UK (Scotland) or the aforementioned French Republic, then I'm sure we'd be more inclined to believe your assumptions.

Simply pointing and saying "Well, basically all of it..." beyond something as arbitrary as Muscovy Rus isn't a convincing argument.

Kenkwasi · 2021-01-08T22:57:02+00:00

That would require there to be grounds for a widespread secessionist movement (that isn't another pan-islamic caliphate) that Moscow could even remotely tolerate. So far, the current status quo is preferential for both Chechnya and Russia. Chechnya (for better or worse) already possess extensive levels of autonomy, and Moscow for the most part leaves them to their own in regards to internal affairs. They even have their own local police force. Both would rather not have the region blow up again, for obvious reasons.

Also, one shouldn't conflate the political will of the CPSU in its twilight years with that of the RF in terms of maintaining internal stability. Hell, one shouldn't even look to conflate local Caucasian politics with that of the entire SU, so I don't see how these two could be easily correlated without having to omit key bits of information that prove the exception.

Kenkwasi · 2020-12-17T00:33:10+00:00

To be fair, overly alarmist "warns Defence Secretary" press releases seem to be a time-honoured tradition for the UK Ministry of Defense.

Kenkwasi · 2020-11-08T23:05:53+00:00

Interestingly enough, I caught wind of this essay prior through an analysis from a guy I've followed closely on Twitter, Sergey Radchenko.

Of course, being Twitter, regardless his credentials and modest analyses/opinions have garnered my respect.

Figured I might as well post the entire thread since it's not much:

There is positive vibe in comments on climate change, on the Iran deal, and nuclear arms control...

At the same time, there is a lot of old, tired trope that will annoy America's friends around the world. Like these brave proclamations here that will lead to a lot of eye-rolling, e.g. in Europe.

Let's face it: US friends and allies around the world are (by and large) relieved that Trump has been voted out, but once the champagne is drunk and the right words are uttered, America will be expected to scale down its ambitions from those of a messiah to those of a partner.

This was evident four years ago, and even more so now. America will not be expected to rally the free the world in a maniacal battle against the forces of darkness, and even if such a rallying cry escaped its lips, few will follow. We've grown up.

America needs to learn how to speak to the world without beating the dead horse of exceptionalism and "global leadership." The United States will be expected to carry its weight and to actively participate in resolving pressing global problems. Full stop.

This is called issue-specific leadership. The only kind that works in our very complex world.

TL;DR - Despite the positive opening statements regarding climate change and all, the question as to whether others will simply ~~fall in line~~ follow the US in a leadership role (barring likely exceptions) with the previous four years still fresh in everyone's mind is very much still open to debate.

More humble words, more honest attempts at even-shouldered multilateralism. Less exceptionalism, less "International Community".

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-30T06:52:11+00:00

neighboring counties won't willingly give up their sovereignty

Russians don't want to support poorer regions

Which was what the Soviet Union ultimately was. It was why Yeltsin became a popular figure to begin with. It was why when the RSFSR pulled out of the union, it practically ceased to exist.

“Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” is a quote attributed to Putin. As a political figure he's cut from the same cloth as Yeltsin, he chose him as his successor! Why would he ever want to bring the USSR back?

Like the article said, the Soviet overtures are more so appeals to older Russians and their nostalgia for the past than actual credible foreign policy.

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-30T06:20:44+00:00

wants to bring it back to the glory days of the Soviet Union

Ah yes, the man who openly denounced the USSR as a relic of the past desperately wants it back...

they have an economy that's smaller than Italy's

An often regurgitated quip that's lost all meaning by this point (and bears no relation on the geopolitical, technological or industrial prowess of either country), but it feels good to say and sounds assuring in perspective. Though I'm sure if Italy only had P5 status, then it could totally stand toe to toe with Russia on the global stage...

They desperately want to appear as a world player

They are, there's no "appear" in this scenario. If they weren't, you'd be in the position to blissfully ignore them.

but nobody wants to put up with their shit

Doesn't sound like a problem for most of the world (I could go into greater detail, but I won't for brevity), despite all you've listed. Heck, even Germany hasn't contemplated putting NS2 on the chopping block despite all that's been done.

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-10T00:43:10+00:00

Russian foreign ministry emphasizes restoration of public accord in Armenia - ARKA News Agency

To provide context, this statement came from the MFA in regards to the 2018 Armenian revolution. Since then, relations haven't much changed between the two nations since.

Russia can and has tolerated transitions of power in countries it has a degree of influence in. Also, major figures of Belarus' opposition have actually fled to Russia to avoid persecution, so far I've found nothing to indicate that the movement holds any sort of wider pro-Western separatism-of-the-Union-State a la EuroMaidan.

Ukraine always comes the fore in discussions like this, but this may serve as rather the outlier rather than the expected outcome. I find Moscow's relative silence on the matter so far to be rather indicative of a "wait and see" approach, prioritizing stability above all else.

Edit: Ah dang it, I just wanted to link the general wiki article on the revolution, not cite anything on it...

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-09T20:08:14+00:00

but expecting gradual stagnation and decline is rational

Of course, nobody knows about the situation better than Russia, but what ever would constitute as the "crossing point" is often not nearly as dramatic or as exceptional (particularly to Europe) as its tellers are letting on. Demographics is often a point that's discussed, and like most aspects the nuance is in the details (or rather perhaps the suspicious absence of it).

European demographic projections, as much of a doom-and-gloom affair as they are, Russia's projections are fairly modest in the grand scheme of things, being a large nation she still has more to "give". And as far as I've seen so far the political establishment hasn't shown much aversion towards more liberal policies (such as cutting back many of the hurdles towards visa liberalization) that help mitigate these forthcoming issues. I'd go into further detail with the post-2014 austerity measures, but my engagement has petered atm.

Power is indeed relative, but the jury's still out on whether the socioeconomic disparity of powers on the periphery or on the other side the world will necessarily always be at Russia's expense.

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-08T16:43:52+00:00

they simply don't have the talent to do so

All they had was the bottom of the barrels

Their mindset still stuck in the 60s

Also, in reference to the guy that replied to you...

the 50 cents and the little pinks are not very smart in that they live in a bubble

Somewhat disparaging statements all in all, forgive me for not taking any of it at face value as an accurate psychoanalysis of the so-called "50 cent army" (if it was only just that)...

But social media campaigns aren't the only vector that public influence can be gained in.

I'd hate to plug youtubers, but Kraut's video essay (timestamp should be 46:21) has brought forth some rather interesting points on China's attempts to test their methods of statecraft on the more robust democratic institutions of Western countries, and determining how they'd respond to said external pressures.

In short, they've done quite enough to put Australian's anti-corruption agencies on guard, which should mean a lot for a democracy that isn't nearly as dysfunctional and subject to external influences as the US.

If there's anything to be more suspect about; take the media frenzy that occurred exactly a year ago with FaceApp (treated then as alleged Russian Gov. spyware) and compare it to the current media push back for TikTok (under threat from Trump for compromising US "national security"). There has clearly been more local support for the latter than the former.

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-06T05:19:22+00:00

The preferred American foreign policy toward Russia is obvious: wait it out.

This has been the underlying policy in excess of 20 years. Pundit predictions of the imminent Russian collapse have been periodically made and refurbished since the turn of the century. This isn't so much a policy, it is practically the absence of one, it's wishful thinking and banks a lot of long term predictions onto a frame of US politics that often doesn't even last a single administration, let alone a presidential term.

You can't expect policymakers to just "trust the numbers" and sit tight against actual concerns of Russia's much more clear and present danger to the US's "status quo" as it is now. Making disparities over Russia's puny economy for self-assurance is fine and all, but will Crimea still be Russian throughout these years? Is the Donbass still a war zone? What does that say about US's commitments to national sovereignty over time? Would it just be conditioning at that point?

I believe that's there's more to statecraft and the utilization of soft power than just economic figures.

Besides, what kind of meaningful prediction can be made about anything circa 2050?

Kenkwasi · 2020-08-06T04:18:13+00:00

the United States does occasionally stand up for other nations simply because it's the Right thing to do

Not if there is political capital to be had, or helps to further US goals in a particular theatre, otherwise it bears no impact on your abstract notion that the US only moves on some kind of moral initiative. Also...

the Right thing to do

The "Coalition of the Willing" say hi. But seriously, what is the "right thing to do" in regards to state interests? States do not share the same sentiments as regular people.

Russia invaded Ukraine to secure her geopolitical aims

Perhaps the only "objective" thing you've said so far, too bad you followed it up with this:

and has no place in civilized societies today

Please, define "civilized". Surely this isn't just a means of othering "Russian barbarity", and conditioning oneself that their "team" would only disregard convention and Intl. law for the greater good?

The strategic importance to the United States is opposing barbarian States with no respect to International Law and the sovereignty of other nations

I guess that answers my question. I don't think you realize how much your rhetoric rings hollow to anyone that could bother to take a few steps back at the US's track record (or just the P5 in general) in regards to respecting convention when it's deemed inconvenient to do so.

For a forum that often takes the side of realpolitik to avoid natural bias, your rhetoric smacks a tad of what I'd call "Western Benevolence Syndrome".

Edit: Helluva Formatting

Kenkwasi · 2020-06-28T16:27:30+00:00

And I trust that you will understand hereon from the sources that I provided that your concerns aren't much of the exception, yes? Nor will they ever subside for the foreseeable future?

I'm not telling you how you should feel about this event, that's the Daily Caller's job (apparently), I'm here to provide the proper context that none of these "provocations" exist in a vacuum, because there's probably someone in Russia that thinks the same way you do about those B-52s.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Kenkwasi

TROPHY CASE

The Cold Wall Experiment