Thread: Russian Military Equipment: Is it still downgraded?

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know if Russia still downgrades its military equipment when it sells it to another country?

In Soviet times, the USSR would degrade equipment that was intended for export in order to ensure an advantage if the equipment was ever turned used against the USSR.

If Russia doesn't intend to downgrade its export equipment, are their any other measures being taken to prevent other countries using Russian equipment against Russia?

China may end up buying the new Russian T-14 Armata. However, couldn't this some day be used against the Russians?

China and Russian aren't best friends and I hear that their is controversy over Siberia.

If only America had done that...

I think all exporters do it in some way.
But they all are interested in positive image. So, it is strange to talk "hey, I sell you downgraded version!".
Instead of that you can silently improve "base model" for your own army, while selling "base model" without mentioning that it is "a little outdated".
Not to mention that most selled weapons are outdated by even model.
Also nuclear states have... some kind of immunity against war for their territory.
I think nuclear weapons are the greatest "peacemakers" in human history. I do not even want to think about Europe-Russia-Japan-China relations in world without nuclear bombs. By the strange coincidence there is no great wars in world after invention of nuclear arms. "War for territory" is outdated now.

If only America had done that...

They sell older versions. It is the same thing really. I don't know of any country that has any updated American equipment - though I am not an expert.

Also, they do downgrade some of their stuff (quite possibly by request from the receiving country that doesn't want to deal with depleted uranium). Like M1 Abrams that have been sold/given away.

Also nuclear states have... some kind of immunity against war for their territory.

So long as you have a leader that people believe is willing to use them in a small scale conflict. No one knows who the next leader of Russia will be. Do you think Russia would use nuclear weapons against China if there was a small scale clash on the Siberian border? I think Russia might respond to 20,000 Chinese troops with 20,000 of their own - at least initially.

> Do you think Russia would use nuclear weapons against China if there was a small scale clash on the Siberian border?
I think it is impossible to have "small scale clash for territory" with nuclear state. They just can increase forces until nuclears can be applied by the military doctrine. So, nobody is interested in it.
P.S.
By the way, Russia and China adjusted borders couple years ago. By peacefull process of course and according to interests of each and other.

By the way, Russia and China adjusted borders couple years ago. By peacefull process of course and according to interests of each and other.

Really? Did Russia lose or gain land?

I think it is impossible to have "small scale clash for territory" with nuclear state. They just can increase forces until nuclears can be applied by the military doctrine. So, nobody is interested in it.

I really do think that at least some nuclear armed states would tolerate a small scale skirmish without going nuclear. Whether or not the current leaders of Russia would, is irrelevant in my view because I don't think if there is going to be any conflict that it will happen soon.

What if there is an "uprising" in Siberia and T-14s that were "captured" from local Russian forces were used against the government forces? Perhaps if the T-14s sold to China are downgraded, then the T-14s that are captured from local Russian forces will also be mysteriously downgraded?

Do you think Chechen rebels receive outside help? Chechen rebels want to separate from the Russian Federation right? So, if in the future they are successful, would the Russian government launch a nuclear weapon? Wouldn't the radiation harm nearby parts of Russia?

Doesn't the United States support Chechen rebels? Or at the very least the Russian government thinks that they are supported by the United States (not easy to give sources because I don't speak Russian, I am relying on what I have heard in the past). Why has Russia not launch nukes at the US if they think that the US is behind attempts to take territory away from them? Or am I wrong in thinking the Russian government thinks the US is supporting the rebels?

Really? Did Russia lose or gain land?

As far as I know, Russia did loose dozen of square kilometers, irreleveant to overall scale. It was about "direct-line" border, which is unconvinient, which was replaced by "border along river". Plus some patches to "equal balance".

You mix up different things. Uprising is not subject of nuclear war at all. Regular army will supress something like Chechnia (and so it was). Talking about "Siberia uprising" is something like talking about "Kansas uprising". Not in this reality. In any case it is about INNER conflict.
China army inside Russia borders completely differs.

Originally Posted by Chemist12

Do you think Chechen rebels receive outside help? Chechen rebels want to separate from the Russian Federation right?

Your information is about 15 years old))) or someone is keeping you misinformed))) this term is no longer used in the current Russian political context... Chechnya receives a lot of money from the federal budget for infrastructure projects (IT IS a republic within Russia), i.e. it's not a rebel region, well currently it's a special donation area... The fertility rate there is the highest in Russia))).

Your information is about 15 years old))) or someone is keeping you misinformed))) this term is no longer used in the current Russian political context... Chechnya receives a lot of money from the federal budget for infrastructure projects (IT IS a republic within Russia), i.e. it's not a rebel region, well currently it's a special donation area... The fertility rate there is the highest in Russia))).

I understand it is a republic of Russia. My understanding is that a low level Chechen insurgency continues even today. For example there was a 2010 attack in the Moscow Metro. My point is that if the Chechens received outside help, it is unlikely that Russia would respond with a nuclear weapon.

Even if the information is 15 years old, it still supports my point. So, fifteen years: (1)the Chechens were supported by the US, (2) Russia had nuclear weapons, and (3) Russia did not launch their nukes at the United States in retaliation for supporting the Chechens.

You mix up different things. Uprising is not subject of nuclear war at all. Regular army will supress something like Chechnia (and so it was). Talking about "Siberia uprising" is something like talking about "Kansas uprising". Not in this reality. In any case it is about INNER conflict.
China army inside Russia borders completely differs.

I think you misunderstand what I am insinuating here. I use "uprising" in quotation marks to indicate that it is not a real internal uprising, but an attack by China in the guise of an uprising. As you said, such an uprising would be suppressed by the regular army. However, if the insurgents have "captured" (in others words Chinese T-14s that were bought from Russia) T-14s, it will make things a lot more difficult for the Russian Army than it would have been if the insurgents didn't have T-14s.

In understand that such a small scale conflict would not result in the loss of all of Siberia, but it might result in some parts declaring independence, and then being supported by China as a new country.

It is easier for the Russian Army to suppress and insurgency if it is not equipped with the latest Russian equipment.

The strength is in numbers, even if you don't "downgrade" equipment you sell, you better make sure you have a much higher number of the equipment for yourself.

The strength is in numbers, even if you don't "downgrade" equipment you sell, you better make sure you have a much higher number of the equipment for yourself.

This would not change the fact that a better equipped insurgency would result in a greater loss of life to the Russian forces than a less well equipped insurgency.

Based on what I have read in various articles from the United States Foreign Military Studies Office, the Russia-China relationship is only superficially friendly. Each country is taking advantage of the other.

For example, Russia is happy to let China buy oil from former USSR countries because it means those countries have no oil left to sell to Europe. This results in Europe going to Russia for oil.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Col...AsiaEnergy.pdf

Are ordinary Russians concerned about the potential for future Chinese aggression?

I use "uprising" in quotation marks to indicate that it is not a real internal uprising, but an attack by China

I really do not understand you.
"Attack by China" is full-scale war. Even in 10x10 square kilometers. First action of any counrty - to declare war and send regular army. If conflict continues or huge masses of Chinese forces arrive - nuclear strike imminent. There will be no "oh, sorry, we will give you siberia if you move out your forces from borders". This will be Third War. Maybe Last by coincidence.

I really do not understand you.
"Attack by China" is full-scale war. Even in 10x10 square kilometers. First action of any counrty - to declare war and send regular army. If conflict continues or huge masses of Chinese forces arrive - nuclear strike imminent. There will be no "oh, sorry, we will give you siberia if you move out your forces from Moscow". This will be Third War. Maybe Last by coincidence.

This is not the way that wars between large countries have been being conducted in recent history.

It is called a "proxy" war. These sorts of war have been fought frequently throughout recent world history. Another name is: "low intensity conflict".

An attack by China does not necessarily equal a full scale war. A full scale war is a full scale war.

There will be no "oh, sorry, we will give you siberia if you move out your forces from Moscow".

I am not suggesting that China will move its forces into Moscow. I am suggesting that they could initiate and support an insurgency.

I am not suggesting that Russia will offer to give up Siberia if China withdraws. I am suggesting that an insurgency could take over one or two Chinese dominated cities in Siberia in the distant future.

What you are saying is simply wrong. The United States has backed Chechen rebels in the past and Russia did not respond with nuclear weapons. What I am saying has already happened in Russia.

You should give the Russian government a little bit more credit. An insurgency that was backed by a major power was suppressed without the use of nuclear weapons.

Unless you are saying the US did not support the Chechens? I a open to that possibility. Their is only anecdotes about it that I am aware of (the former FBI director said the US supported the Chechen rebels).

Are ordinary Russians concerned about the potential for future Chinese aggression?

Again - not about military agression - it will be foolish in modern reality. But there are really exist some concerns about economic and population dominance. However, this is question of far future.

I am suggesting that they could initiate and support an insurgency.

Again, insurgency will be supressed by regular army. Chechnia was "war against terrorism" in the land there living population itself supported terrorism. This is not possible in Siberia.
Just image this scenario between Mexico and USA in Texas. Is it possible? You say about something similar.

Unless you are saying the US did not support the Chechens?

USA didn't do it at least directly. Something like "some organisations in middle-east, which were supported by USA support Chechen's uprising - maybe, and yes. There were nor direct "help" nor claims to free Chechnia through UN.
But there was informational war in plain of "evil russian supress freedom fighters" - some sort of yes...

Okay, I was under the impression that everyday Russians were greatly concerned about Chinese aggression (regardless of whether it is realistic or not).

Your post seems to suggest it is not as much of a concern as I thought. Correct?

I have just been using google, and it seems that Russians are not to worried about China.

I don't recall what made me think that this was a major concern of Russians. Actually, I was under the impression that the modernisation of the Russian military was as a direct result of concern about the Chinese. I literally don't know where I got this information from though. It just seems to be in my head.

Obviously, I did get some info from articles, but the main bits... not sure where it came from.

Actually, I was under the impression that the modernisation of the Russian military was as a direct result of concern about the Chinese.

Haha, no, it is "direct concern of 'EUSA'". China is not bombing all middle-east and have military bases all across the world, but 'EUSA' does and have. ))

P.S.

(and yes, you talked about "supported by outer forces insurgents" - and yes, this IS well-known tactic of "EUSA" and there is fear about it in Russia. Not from China. China has influence on 'opposition' near zero in Russia.)