Russians are well-known of selling half-baked low quality junk to it's partners. Also Russian economy is same as of Spain, they lack both know-how, technology and expertise in developing of high-end weapons. Soviet Union days are long gone and it's successor Russia is a mafia-run state. That article is just a Russian propaganda of some mockup that Russia can't make.
People were saying the same doing soviet days, it seems to be some kind of jingoistic fantasy that have never really played out in the real world i.e. every time nato/us supplied forces encounter competently operated Russian kit they have had to fight it out based on numbers and logistics rather then depend on the technological inferiority of the opposing forces weapons.
The same goes for say French, Swedish or Indian planes who does tend to hold up a lot better in real world conditions then the derision they get from the pentagon propagandist doing procurement suggests.
The truth is that the technologies involved is so mature that any largish economy can put out reasonable effective platforms the reason nobody else then the US is making stealth have more to do with the limitations of stealth then the fact that it requires secret knowledge only possessed by the US.
The image of the enemy has to be self-contradictory: it has to be both scary and fearsome ― to justify the defence spending ― but also feeble and laughable ― again, yo justify the defence spending: the intended mindset is "the victory is inevitable", not "let's just surrender immediately". You can see it everywhere, everywhen, it's a universal propaganda tactics since the dawn of mankind, rediscovered independently and I'd say even subconsciously.
And it's applicable even in non-military spending: a month ago some US newspaper (Bloomberg? WP? Don't recall exactly) managed, in the same article, accuse Russia both of a) it sells to much gas to Europe too cheap to make it dependent on Russia; b) Russia doesn't sell Europe enough of gas, it should ramp up the sales immediately. Yes, in different paragraphs, but it still kinda funny when you notice it. Or that one time when Biden simultaneously called everyone to double down on transfer to green energy, battling the climate change, and also demanded from OPEC to increase oil output and then even released 50 million barrels of oil from the reserves, because expensive oil is bad for economy, you know.
> accuse Russia both of a) it sells to much gas to Europe too cheap to make it dependent on Russia; b) Russia doesn't sell Europe enough of gas, it should ramp up the sales immediately
a) RF increased its share in EU market for natural gas too much. Everybody worried that RF can decrease supply rapidly to skyrocket price.
b) RF decreased supply of natural gas rapidly to skyrocket price.
Well, RF (30% of market share) did not decrease the supply, it was the demand that rose "unexpectedly". Well, why did the US not rescue the EU with additional supplies of LNG, for example? The gas terminals were built several years pretty much for this reason, to be able to buy LNG from the US and Qatar to diversify the supplies. Why did Norway with its 35% market share not increase the supply via its pipelines? Nope, it is Russia that must increase the supply, apparently to the level of having about 50% of market share, but that would be fine this time because... reasons?
Also, RF resisted until the very last from switching from the long-term contracts to the spot contracts, it was forced to do so by the court decision in 2019, sued by Poland that argued that the spot market price is fairer (it also got $2 billion refunded to the boot). Two years later, this November, Poland tried to sue again, arguing now that the spot market price is unfair, and Gazprom should only take the previously negotiated price, and refund whatever was overpaid to it (about $5 billion IIRC).
I understand that all this is pretty much how haggling looks like when the hagglers are nation-states who have to sell the deals to their population somehow: selective reporting, overstating some circumstances, understating other, selective application of arguments, etc. But the end result is still exorbitant heating/electrical bills and cold houses all over the country but you also get to feel outraged at the other side, as a bonus.
Natural gas flows at the westernmost point of the Yamal pipeline — a strategically important 2,000-kilometer pipeline that runs across four countries: Russia, Belarus, Poland and Germany — dropped to 20 million cubic meters per day in mid-August, according to ICIS. This was down from 49 mcm per day at the end of July, and a sharp fall from its typical rate of 81 mcm per day.
Pipeline exports of natural gas from Russia’s state-backed monopoly Gazprom to continental Europe have dropped roughly one-fifth in 2021 on pre-pandemic levels despite a sharp rebound in demand and low stockpiles of the important fuel. The imbalance has helped send prices in Europe to the highest levels since 2008, increasing energy costs for homes and businesses.
I cannot feel outraged that Russia wants to sell its natural resources at the highest price.
But according to media propaganda Putin should literally be giving it away for free.
Russia is using oil and gas for making € and as a geopolitical tool. As every sovereign country does.
It's their gas for crying out loud they can do with it whatever they want!
Russia is a mafia run state, true, and they're severely behind in many areas.
However, they have very capable military hardware, and in many types of it, quantity has a quality of its own. It doesn't matter much that an M1 Abrams is technically superior than a T-14 Armata if for the same budget you can get three times more Armatas.
That, and ease of maintenance and support, is among the reasons why Russian military hardware is very popular and sells extremely well, even if it might not be the best objectively compared to the competition.
And sometimes it is better, like the S-400 SAM which is objectively better than the Patriot, or some types of missiles ( e.g. BrahMos). Or BMPs/BTRs that are even popular with very US friendly Gulf states which don't care about budgets.
Regarding Spain, they have literally developed a (small) aircraft carrier, frigates, supply ships, submarines that were successfully sold abroad. Airbus Military is based in Spain, and they're working on a future stealth 6 gen fighter with Dassault Aviation, Thales and Indra ( which are fully Spanish).
Don't shit on smaller countries just because they don't have the same budget as the US.
1. T-14 Armata never entered into serial production, Russia lacks resources to actually make it into product, they just built cardboard prototype and left it there. Abrams is being produced like hot cakes. It's just Russia's claim that T-14 is superior but there is 0 proof.
2. Maintenance and support of junk is still junk
3. It's Russia's claim that S-400 SAM is better, but nobody knows the truth, in fact S-300 only proved itself in battle by shooting down civilian aircraft over Ukraine when Russia invaded it, killing innocent children in the air.
4. BMP/BTR lack sufficient armor to the point that soldiers prefer to go marching on their own foot because it is basically death trap to be inside BMP/BTR APC.
Yes, Spain is doing way better than shithole Russia, after all Russian people is being ruled by Tzar Putin and they like it.
Did you misread 3/4 of what i said and add a bunch of outright wrong statements? I never claimed the Armata is superior, and it doesn't matter. Swap Armata for the T-90, T-80 or heck T-72, the same logic applies. Lower quality arms of certain types, such as tanks, at sufficient numbers can easily overwhelm even much better equipment.
Easy maintenance of not great hardware is better than complex maintenance of magnificent hardware. Just ask the Germans, Americans and Russians during WW2. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit on paper, but was easy to maintain, and could be produced in huge numbers. The Tiger sounds scary on paper, but it didn't matter since there weren't enough of them, and the few that existed broke down easily.
S-400 is probably better. The Patriot system is old, and doesn't even have 360 field of fire. Turkey went as far as getting kicked out of the F-35 programme over the S-400, so it's not only the Russians' word. Furthermore, it's an improvement over the earlier S-300, which is widely deployed and understood, and is generally a good and well liked system. (And note: it wasn't an S-300 that was used to shoot down the civilian airliner in Ukraine, it was a Buk, which is a mobile AA system, unlike the S series, which is (mostly) static for defense of specific areas).
BTR isn't supposed to protect from more than small arms fire, being a light armoured vehicle and all. BMPs aren't APCs, but IFV. Do you have a source on your ridiculous claim that infantry prefer to march on foot? BMPs were used in Yemen and I've heard of no such thing.
Spain is doing decently, and so is Russia. ( In terms of armament, in terms of civil liberties and all that stuff Russia is far behind).
