ar RIGHT NOW 27 Incredible Photos Of Life On A US Navy Submarine 19 Terms Only Sailors Will Understand 37 Awesome Photos Of Life On A US Navy Carrier 17 Brilliant Insights From Legendary Marine General James Mattis 11 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About ‘Saving Private Ryan’ The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week 7 Key Military Life Hacks That Matter In Civilian Life The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand
Russia Trying To Develop An Aircraft Carrier That Can Hold 100 Planes
JEREMY BENDER, BUSINESS INSIDER FEBRUARY 17, 2015
Russia’s government-owned Krylov State Research Center is on its way towards developing Russia’s latest aircraft carrier, according to Russian media.
The aircraft carrier is in a very rudimentary stage of its development. It’s still under conceptual testing in Krylov’s laboratory.
But if the tests prove successful and the carrier’s design is deemed plausible, the research center will follow through with a 1:1 scale metal mock-up of the carrier (China may have just constructed its own mock-up of a new carrier).
According to Russia’s TV Vezda, the carrier would be able to stow 100 aircraft onboard. The body of the carrier is also being designed to minimize drag by 20 percent compared to past Russian carriers. If built, the vessel would be Russia’s first carrier to debut since the Admiral Kuznetsov, which launched in 1985. The Kuznetsov is Russia’s only functioning carrier.
TV Vezda also stated that the ship would feature catapults on the ship’s top to launch aircraft during storms. However, this claim is countered by the fact that the carrier’s models feature a ski-ramp style aircraft in the front aircraft takeoff like older Soviet models, which did not have catapults.
The Russian carrier, if constructed, would be slightly larger than the US’s current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, which can carry around 90 aircraft.
Hahahahahahah. The hilarious part about that is, the Mistral class ships mentioned in the article? They were originally supposed to be built in Russian yards, to improve their skill and tech, they (the Mistral class vessels) were so past their capability that the French had to do the whole job. It's well known the Russians can't maintain their current fleet, with most of their large combatants being either wildly out of date, flawed from inception or rotting by the pier. So with all that in mind they're going to make a super-carrier? AND it's going to be STOBAR? Holy feth! That's either pure stupidity, pure propaganda or both. It doesn't matter how many aircraft you can haul when you limit yourself with a STOBAR design, you have to launch slow, and you're either light on fuel or light on payload. Neither works well for a combat aircraft. Especially if you need to add immediate airborne refueling to launching a sortie. Maybe the designers just made a mistake on the model, but there's not even a vaguely good reason for a ski jump when you have a cat.
So in short, Russia has announced plans to build a ship it lacks the capacity to build, maintain or pay for utilizing a design that was out of date during the Cold War.
I think the same thing when I hear about this new fancy tank they want to build honestly. It sounds awesome sure, but how is Russian funding it? Then I read they can't even reach a deal on production with the designer and the plan they want calls for 2000 units by 2020. The flip?
What is everyone so worried about XD There's no way in hell they will ever build that many tanks in 5 years. It took them 20 years just to build 2000 T90s!
I call bs on this. Russia's fleet may have been modernised and is no longer be rusting away, but it is still very small. Russia has never been a naval power, it does not the capability of building such ships. Of course that could change in the near future, but aircraft carriers just do not fit in the Russian combat doctrine. There has even been talk of scrapping or selling the Kuznetsov because it costs a lot without adding much. Better to use the money to build more nuclear submarines.
I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
Iron_Captain wrote: I call bs on this. Russia's fleet may have been modernised and is no longer be rusting away, but it is still very small. Russia has never been a naval power, it does not the capability of building such ships. Of course that could change in the near future, but aircraft carriers just do not fit in the Russian combat doctrine. There has even been talk of scrapping or selling the Kuznetsov because it costs a lot without adding much. Better to use the money to build more nuclear submarines.
Modernized meaning it's been brought up to cold war standards with most of her major surface combatants unable to sortie.
A old Soviet hulk they finished that's design is entirely outdated and 2-3 decades old.
China's carrier is not intended to face real combat operations.
Its only purpose is as a training platform.
Agreed, building carriers is not as difficult as it is made out to be. It requires certain infrastructure and expertise and both Russia and China are gaining in both.
I would not laugh off either nations military technology.
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
I really forward to Mr Putin trying to pay for this, turning up at the shipyards one morning with his credit card. “Transaction rejected? Well there must be some kind of mistake. I’m certain there’s enough balance left, must be a problem with the card. Lyudmila, do you have your card on you, something is wrong with mine.”
Incidentally, did anyone see the news a few weeks ago that Apple was now valued at more than the entire Russian stock exchange. Yeah. A shortage of supercarriers is not the problem, Mr Putin.
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
Russias carrier groups are no more or less vulnerable than those of the US to attack from a major power. The shift against sea power is direct power politics happened when satelite data became freely available. The sea is just an open surface with nowhere to hide. The only real exceptions to this rule are the submarine service.
Carriers are there not to threaten other world powers but to threaten mook states with tiny obsolete air forces.
Incidentally, did anyone see the news a few weeks ago that Apple was now valued at more than the entire Russian stock exchange. Yeah. A shortage of supercarriers is not the problem, Mr Putin.
Who cares.
The Soviet Union didnt need an economy, they have a crapton of nukes and a space program.
"Mr Putin, we dont like your economy and want to foreclose."
"Niet"
"But you are in debt!!"
"Niet, we have nukes."
"OK... you have nukes.......We will send you another letter showing our diapproval, pay soon Vlad."
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
Russias carrier groups are no more or less vulnerable than those of the US to attack from a major power. The shift against sea power is direct power politics happened when satelite data became freely available. The sea is just an open surface with nowhere to hide. The only real exceptions to this rule are the submarine service.
Carriers are there not to threaten other world powers but to threaten mook states with tiny obsolete air forces.
And? Never said ours were, though I would wager our defenses are better (for however much that's worth).
Sea power is important, but it involves serveral factors.
1. Local shore patrol.
2. Mobile tactical missile platforms
3. Mobile strategic weapopn platforms
4. Submersible/stealth units.
5. Shore based tactical missile platforms
6. Logistical support
Some assets are mixtures of several components
So a carrier fleet normally comprises all six, those the fourth section will belong to the attacvhed submarine asset and the group has no stealth capability of itself. That being said against a mook state carrier fleets are very stealthy.
in most cases of carrier group based power projection the target country never gets to know where the carrier group is.
Now the Soviets lacked that capability due to their outlook. It was an oversight for most of the timeline of the Soviet Union and one that would have been addressed by the mid 90's had the Soviert Union persisted.
However soviets did have all the right technologies.
The offensive fleet was almost entirely submarine based.
Backed up by the awesome strength of Soviet Naval Aviation. Killing opposed carrier groups would not be a provblem, either the submarine force was sufficient or the long range naval bombers were sufficient bioth could achieve target saturation and by having two methods to achieve the kill there was an element of future proofing. The Soviet carrier groups, and they did have them, were mostly surface cover for their boomer fleets and served valid purpose in that regard.
Instead of carrier fleets the Soviet union would engage in power projection with manifestos and assault rifles. By and large it worked and carrier fleets were an insufficient counter.
Post Soviet Union US carrier fleets have been let off the leash somewhat and as a rsult the Russians and Chiones want to join and play the same game. Russia sticks to its core competencies but also wants a carrier fleet fgor power projection.
China is just playing with the technology. Chines power projection works by a sequential annexation of international waters, and it looks like they will get what they want.
Chines carriers don't need to be effective, they only need to be there, Chinas reach is based on shore based aviation range and local water geography.
Besides Chinas tech is deliberately understated, they dont push their new toys, they withhold them, and prefer to appear weaker than they actually are. If anyone things China is backward they are still looking at the nation through 70's goggles.
We don't even have the specs for the current generation of Chinese technology, and with security that good I think its backed with good quality too. I think they are much better and wheedling info out of the west than the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If they get the French to build it, they should make sure they get a receipt this time.
France is a natural partner for Russia for historical reasons, still cannot be trusted though. Buy your technology from France, and you buy the 'what next?' as you don't expect to ever get a completed job.
Seriously, guys? You actually believe in this crap?!
All this multi-billion military projects are just another way to steal taxpayers' money.
Who in their right mind will fight a total war nowdays with such kind of navy when you have nukes? Why would you ever build ONE carrier when for the last 70 years your navy relied premiraly on submarines (which you still apparently build in decent numbers, if our TV can at least partially be trusted)? Not only that, but for such a ship you will need to build some docking infrastructure - a lot of aditional money. And then, will it be useful? What was the purpose (other than showing how Over-The-Top and Badass they are) of the US sending their carriers to Persian Gulf when they have miitary bases in Turkey?
I honestly believe this is the same case as SDI, F-22, PAK FAT-50 and other extremely shiny toys with questionable dakka-per-dollar - a way for military corporation to make another tonn of money.
The sad thing is that the majority of people will probably support this crap given all that Ucranian BS
But North Korea is so cool. Have you seen the state mandated hair cut? Sure they're starving, but with hair like that the corpses must look pretty good. That's a country that has its priorities right
Including: 5. Shore based tactical missile platforms?
Relaying.
The Soviet carrier fleets were very heavily tied in with shore based naval aviation, to the extent the support should be considered organic.
If the Kirov wanted support from wings of Backfires it didnt have to go to another department or service to get them, they were already directly allocated.
Western fleets less so, it has to go through the Pentagon etc. While in modern times that decision can be made quickly enough this is only because carrier operations are conducted at a fairly leisurely pace as they are there as a bully squad. Soviet carrier groups were for protecting the boomer fleet from other major powers and so at a pinch needed to be able to work fluidly.
TseGuevara wrote: Who in their right mind will fight a total war nowdays with such kind of navy when you have nukes?
Because there's a hell of a lot of situations where strength in conventional arms solves your problems in a way that nuclear threat just doesn't work. I'll just let Yes, Prime Minister explain it;
Yes Minister/Prime Minister was a very clever program that hid a lot of truths.
The point remains, the nuclear deterent works even in the event of 'salami tactics' because the opposed force doesn't know when any one slice is too many.
Also need we discuss the value of nukes when one side has them and the other does not.
Nuclear brinkmanship is a more subtle skill than it appears it gives the power a strong hand in the international poker game. Which is why its preferably limited who has that power.
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
They do leave their silos... Into the hands of private "collectors" to help fund the retirement of Russian generals
Orlanth wrote: Yes Minister/Prime Minister was a very clever program that hid a lot of truths.
The point remains, the nuclear deterent works even in the event of 'salami tactics' because the opposed force doesn't know when any one slice is too many..
If you want to read that closely in to it you might want to watch the whole episode to get the full context. The debate wasn't about dropping nuclear altogether, but about whether the UK should upgrade from Polaris to Trident.
The point made was that you couldn't just neglect conventional force because you have a nuclear deterrent, as important as that might be a strong conventional army is still essential.
To be more blunt about it, having a nuclear deterrent and nothing else means your only arms option is a nuclear deterrent. You can't say "I'm going to park tanks on your border now." All you can say is "I have my finger on the button." It's an immediate escalation to MAD, which is a really limited (and potentially hazardous) Plan A.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.
I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marinecowboy"
LordofHats wrote: To be more blunt about it, having a nuclear deterrent and nothing else means your only arms option is a nuclear deterrent. You can't say "I'm going to park tanks on your border now." All you can say is "I have my finger on the button." It's an immediate escalation to MAD, which is a really limited (and potentially hazardous) Plan A.
Nuclear deterrent should be Plan G at the least
Nuclear deterrent was plan A, wasnt it. At least in the pacific.
Thats why Cuba happened, the US had missiles within striking distance of Russia, No wonder Russia tried the same. Months later the US system was dismantled. The US might have written history on its side, Over here anyway. Won the war by themselves, went from no where to the moon, maybe.
Might be the Khaos talking or at least the but....
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.
I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marine"
They don't even have the ability to build helicopter carriers so they also don't have the ability to build normal aircraft carriers.
They also don't have the economic capacity to improve that ability or even to undertake such a project in the first place.
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Oh how wrong.
1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.
Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy.
And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Oh how wrong.
1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.
Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind.
4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one.
5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)?
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy.
And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.
Not really. Maybe that is true for a small group of uppity Muscovites, but for most Russians, the situation did not change much from the 80s. Russia's recent economic growth was more about getting back to the 80s level after everything was destroyed in the 90s. What makes you know so much about Russian people that you can say they can't do without luxury items? And what luxury items are you talking about anyways? What kind of item would suddenly be unavailable? Look at Russian history. Look at everything the Russian people had to go through in the last century alone. How could any current economical problems ever be significant next to suffering of the 90s? Next to the genocide and famine our grandfathers had to suffer? You do not understand the Russian people. An entire nation's character does not suddenly change entirely in a few years.
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Oh how wrong.
1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions. 2. Permanent member of the security council. 3. Largest nuclear arsenal. 4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it. 5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources. 6. Active space program 7. Active and competent intelligence community. 8. Established military technology. 9. Established industrial infrastructure.
Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended. 2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage. 3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind. 4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one. 5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)? 6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist. 7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies. 8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it. 9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.
1. True, but Russia was never about economic power. 2. Dismissing a permanent place on the Security Council as unimportant only shows your ignorance of international politics. It may be a legacy from the days of WW2, but so are the seats of the other members. It still gives them a large amount of international importance. 3. A lot of Russia's arsenal consists of outdated Soviet missiles that are no longer needed today. But there is a significant amount of newly developed missiles and modernised missiles as well. Doubt their operationability at your own peril. 4. For Russia, Ukraine is to the west. 5. Because those factors are important when determining a nation's power (and thus influence) You will note that all the most influential and powerful nations in the world have massive populations, land masses and natural resources. No exceptions in all of world history. 6. Being the only nation with access to reliable, operational manned spacecraft makes the Russian space program kinda important. If the EU would pull funding, they would destroy their own space program as well, which relies mostly on Russian ships and facilities. 7. The keyword is control. When you control the entire state, it is easy to prevent any blunder from becoming public. 8. Most US military technology is also more than 20 years old. The decayed part is really something from the 90s. What is now in active service is modernised and well maintained. The old stuff and rusty stuff has mostly been put in storage to be shipped to some 3rd world country. 9. Tanks! lots of tanks! Thanks to Soviet priorities, Russia's military industry is much more advanced than its civilian industry and survived the 90s mostly intact.
The oligarchy no longer controls Russia, that was in the 90s. They were mostly elimated by Putin and replaced by a new elite of chekists. They and the middle class all have lived through the 90s. Any current economical trouble is nothing compared to that. Apart from a small elite, most Russians are still used to having a lower living style than their northern European and American counterparts. Present Russian economy is not that much higher than 1990 Soviet economy.
Everyone under estimates the mother land. Theyve been smashed to the wall again and again. Theyre still standing.
I think ive read reports of us silos filling with water too. meh.
The Us has its own kgb, nkvd, fsb. Names change, the song remains the same. Dress it up how you like. If the US had been around for as long as eastern europe, we would all be wearing mind control bands
Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy..
The Saudisare working to a script written in Washington.
Still the Russian economy is not torpedoed, the Russian economy is an island and cant be sunk.
Sure the numbers of roubles may be less but Russia sees through that, most in the West do not.
It doesn't matter if Russia has big numbers or small numbers in the national balance, what matters is the supply of food vodka and oil. RTussians can setle for less and frwquently do, this is the true test of resilience.
We in the west cry dire poverty when we lose a few creature comforts, it takes a lot more to faze Russia.
Take the Crimea, the local economy IS past collapse, cut off and heavily sanctioned. However even when the entire annexed province is fethed and even local governbment executives queue for bread and potatoes. Yet support for Putin is very strong, resolve is strong and the Rodina factor is kicking in.
Most western nations complain like pussies if things are only slightly as bad. Greece for example, and Greece is an unfair example because they are in the gak. I have no doubt the UK, US or France would behave no better in similar straits.
And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.
Russia is a hard place and people tend to be resilient. Sure they have colour TV's and internet now but its still -30 in winter, supply problems still exist.
Also Russia has made sure that even in the gak times what they need to get through gets through. People aren't having their TV's or internet taken away, are given relief if they cant pay basic bills. Entertainment is to be found, as is vodka and reasonable amounts to half decent food. I would rather be poor in Moscow than poor in London.
Russia has a less selfish attitude towards utilities and infrastructure, wheras in the UK the only consideration is how much can be gouged from the populace. It also helps that Russia makes everything they actually need, and any consumer luxury item they desire is only a land border away from China.
Russia is de facto economically resilient more so than most if not all western countries,, and this is despite the West mamking a real go of making things hard to the Russian economy. When the Us wants a country to go belly up fiscally, it normally happens, not in Russia it doesn't. Especially because the real player of global trade - China is not playing on the same side.
LordofHats wrote: But North Korea is so cool. Have you seen the state mandated hair cut? Sure they're starving, but with hair like that the corpses must look pretty good. That's a country that has its priorities right
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Oh how wrong.
1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
6. Active space program
7. Active and competent intelligence community.
8. Established military technology.
9. Established industrial infrastructure.
Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.
Russia isn't and never was technologically backward since the Great Patriotic War, that was western propaganda. Russia is also more economically resilient than the west, the west is soft and likes it easy, western economies rely on a false fiscal bubble and ever offset debts. Russia doesn't have this achilles heel, the people are satisfied with less. IMHO Russia is more adaptable or resilient to economic warfare than we are, I just hope we never find out how true that is.
Practically everything that you say on that list is factually incorrect (the best type of incorrect)...
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
3. Good for them. How much of that arsenal is even in operational conditions? No one knows (and I hope that no one has to find out), but a report about missile silos filled with water suddenly comes to my mind.
4. Which western country has Russia invaded again? Because Ukraine isn't one.
5. So is India. How is this relevant (apart from the natural resources part, that is the only reason why they haven't completely collapsed... yet)?
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
7. I'll give you this one, at least they don't make public blunders like some other intelligence agencies.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Russian GDP is supposed to shrink 3% during this year, they have a rising unemployment rate, their trade surplus is diminishing and they are facing a 15% inflation rate! It is true that under the old Soviet Union, Russians were used to having a much lower life style than their western counterparts. But how true is that for the current oligarchy that controls Russia? Or for the rising middle class? I guess that, unless the price of oil starts rising up dramatically again, that is something that we will find out sooner rather than later.
1. True, but Russia was never about economic power.
2. Dismissing a permanent place on the Security Council as unimportant only shows your ignorance of international politics. It may be a legacy from the days of WW2, but so are the seats of the other members. It still gives them a large amount of international importance.
3. A lot of Russia's arsenal consists of outdated Soviet missiles that are no longer needed today. But there is a significant amount of newly developed missiles and modernised missiles as well. Doubt their operationability at your own peril.
4. For Russia, Ukraine is to the west.
5. Because those factors are important when determining a nation's power (and thus influence) You will note that all the most influential and powerful nations in the world have massive populations, land masses and natural resources. No exceptions in all of world history.
6. Being the only nation with access to reliable, operational manned spacecraft makes the Russian space program kinda important. If the EU would pull funding, they would destroy their own space program as well, which relies mostly on Russian ships and facilities.
7. The keyword is control. When you control the entire state, it is easy to prevent any blunder from becoming public.
8. Most US military technology is also more than 20 years old. The decayed part is really something from the 90s. What is now in active service is modernised and well maintained. The old stuff and rusty stuff has mostly been put in storage to be shipped to some 3rd world country.
9. Tanks! lots of tanks! Thanks to Soviet priorities, Russia's military industry is much more advanced than its civilian industry and survived the 90s mostly intact.
The oligarchy no longer controls Russia, that was in the 90s. They were mostly elimated by Putin and replaced by a new elite of chekists. They and the middle class all have lived through the 90s. Any current economical trouble is nothing compared to that. Apart from a small elite, most Russians are still used to having a lower living style than their northern European and American counterparts. Present Russian economy is not that much higher than 1990 Soviet economy.
1. Russia has a de facto G8 economy which is currently in the sin bin. That doesnt mean the G8 was able to wave a magic wands and make the factories disappear.
2. Permanent member status means that the Un can issue no formal sanction against Russia, it will get vetoed.
3. I question how much of the other western arsenals are operational. This sort of data will be classified on a level only a handful of people in the country concerned will know. It would make sense for Russia to maintain a paper presence at some nuclear installations if free Maskirovka to go with downsizing. Besides you don't need 30k warheads to feth the world, even a tiny fraction of the soviet arsenal has to work to ensure MAD.
4. Ukraine is in Europe and inhabited by white people. Most adventures occur in fringe countries filled with blacks or arabs.
5. India is a different case, not too different because India is a power in waiting slowly growing. But the majority still wear robes and live in a preindustrial society. They have a space program and villages where the common transport is the Mk1 donkey.
6. If you want to live to reach orbit and live to come home fly Soyuz. By the safety record US spaceships are akin to ork technology.
7. Enough said. The main difference is that Russia (and Israel) don't pussy out when it comes to using their intelligence agencies offensively.
8. You know that rusty 20 year old Russian stuff has a word for it: reliable. The US mobilised national guard fo Iraq and sent them on patrol in 50's transports. UK gear is made in the third world by the lowest bidder and is gak when new.
Russia can provide bulk low tech solution or on a smaller scale advantaged technologies. As the US has also cut the active military to IIRC two brigades for immediate reaction, and I would hate to think what we now have in the Uk post cuts, Russis is doing ok.
9. I don't think Russia needs that many tanks, personally I think the spending there is ringfenced in the way western expenditure is ringfenced outside of legislative control. Putin doesn't control everything.
Orlanth wrote: 9. I don't think Russia needs that many tanks, personally I think the spending there is ringfenced in the way western expenditure is ringfenced outside of legislative control. Putin doesn't control everything.
There is no such a thing as too many tanks. Tanks are cool. Especially KV tanks. Russia should start producing KV tanks again.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
A pair of deuces is enough sometimes. Might not matter much to the guy sitting across the table, but it does to the guy next to them.
If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them. Sanctions, pffft.
I'm surprised you didn't call yourself "ooh rah we won ww2 M16marinecowboy"
...
We won the Cold War too cupcake don't you forget it. You know how we stop Russia getting a carrier much less a super carrier? Sit back and fething laugh at one of the giants laid low. One pissant strong man dictator does not an empire make. The Russian army can't even make it's recruiting quotas with a draft, and vaunted Russian heavy industry can't even maintain the surface combatants it has now, and those were so poorly manufactured sailing with the Iranian navy's speedboat flotilla is safer.
Russia wants to try and make a carrier? Cool. I'll pop some popcorn for the outtakes of the resulting failures. Hell, when you have to pay the French to build your ships for you because their yards simply are not capable.... not to mention we're talking about a failure of a navy that couldn't even get a proper CATOBAR carrier when it was strong and had actual financial backing. Nukes and a pretension of strength is all Russia has left. No pride, no respect, and quite shortly, no money.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm surprised nobody has asked the logical question of where they would base this carrier if they built it.
The Black Sea? highly unlikely.
Murmansk? Unlikely.
The Baltic via Kallingrad. Maybe, but as soon as it sets out to sea, everybody would know about it.
The Far East? Seems the most likely place. Maybe the Russians are thinking long term about backing China over Taiwan or some other crisis in the area.
The Sino-Russian relationship is not a close one as one might think. Remember there were division level tank engagements between the Russians and Chinese not too damn long ago.
Russia is nothing more than a pre-school bully. They have the capability to pick on the smaller kids that are around them, but they are very, very far from being a major player in the world stage.
Oh how wrong.
Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.
Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.
For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor
Russia is a second string player that is still convinced it's a super power.
Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.
For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor
Russia is a second string player that is still convinced it's a super power.
Rather.
Their ability to nuke things is literally the only influence the Russians can claim to have at this stage. And considering even the Indians can do that now, it's hardly even worth boasting about anymore.
That's what I was getting at earlier And I'd go further and say it's not "hardly worth boasting about." It just plain isn't worth boasting about. No one takes a nuclear deterrent seriously when that's the only threat you can offer and I don't think anyone puts any real stock in Putin's threats. He's far too interested in getting richer to go blowing up the world.
I'm sure Russia itself realizes this, which is why they want to build new tanks and a super carrier, but that just exposes the weakness of Russia further I think.
LordofHats wrote: For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor
That's not true. They also got attention on the world stage for cutting off gas to it's neighbours
For evidence, just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor
OK lets run with this. China also largely keeps quiet, are they unimportant?
We won the Cold War too cupcake don't you forget it.
China won the Cold War. They gained the most.
They are still 'commes' and the west are making concessions not th other way around.
The Cold War came to a successful conclusion because of moves made by Thatcher, which were later aped by Reagan.
The US policy was one of stalemate, it was Thatcher who maneuvered the victory.
"Americuh feth yeah, we won the cold war" is barstool politics with a wobbly stool.
are two vastly different things. Your comparison is utter gak, pointless, and makes me question why you even said it.
You never learnt how to make an argument, did you? Why are you even here? You are basically just saying: "Your argument is wrong because it contains spelling errors and I don't like it." How mature.
Claiming the world does not pay attention to Russia is rather stupid.
If you are convinced that Russia has no influence on the world stage, please name me 10 countries that have more political influence on the world stage than Russia and show how they have influenced the world more than Russia did this past 10 year.
If you want to find evidence for Russia's influence, just find an international politics journal and look how often Russia comes up.
Iron_Captain wrote: Claiming the world does not pay attention to Russia is rather stupid.
Then it's a good thing no one said that.
just go look at recent history where the only time the World Stage even pays more the cursory attention to Russia is because they've invaded a neighbor
Reposted for those who apparently missed it.
No one ever said no attention is paid or that they have no influence. I will made that addendum that we also paid a lot of attention during the Winter Games cause everyone loves corruption and scandal
The world is paying attention to both Russia and China.
Both also keep relatively quiet and speak through actions.
Those actions are not ignored, are opposed and yet to very little effect.
What has anyone done to kick the Russians out of Crimea? Also the recent ceasefire only served Russia as it allowed crucial hours to outmaneuver a pocket of resistance and then force surrender.
Both also keep relatively quiet and speak through actions.
What China are you paying attention to? The late Song Dynasty?
Outside of it's energy industry, Russia only comes up as a mandatory mention whenever you're talking about the former Soviet Bloc (in any given typical year they're not invading anything). When was the last time the media paid much attention to domestic Russian politics? When Putin started cracking down on the gays and before that, when Medvedev was getting put in charge. When was the last time Cechnya got much mention? The Islamic insurgency in the Caucasus? Russian economic policy? News about Russia is shallow around the world.
Russia doesn't get much attention from the world when it's keeping to itself because there just isn't much to pay attention to. We get the typical sound bytes relaying current events, but no one spends ridiculous amounts of time reporting on anything. Compare to the near constant mainstream coverage we get of US, UK, French, and German politics. Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even North Korea gets more mention. I have no idea why you keep talking about China like there's a comparison. China isn't quiet (seriously, lulwut?). China engages in near constant saber rattling with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, and pretty much all their neighbors. They operate one of the most important economies in the world and there's always something wacky going on in country for the media to report on. There is not much of a comparison there beyond "used to be full blown commies then decided making money was funner."
You are basically just saying: "Your argument is wrong because it contains spelling errors and I don't like it."
No, I'm not.
As an aside, I've been thinking recently about how if someone agrees with you, quite often people will unreservedly go "Yes, excellent". I've realised that if -certain- posters here were to post in agreement with what I think, it would actually cause me to look at that viewpoint more critically than I would if someone else had -disagreed- with me.
You are basically just saying: "Your argument is wrong because it contains spelling errors and I don't like it."
No, I'm not.
As an aside, I've been thinking recently about how if someone agrees with you, quite often people will unreservedly go "Yes, excellent". I've realised that if -certain- posters here were to post in agreement with what I think, it would actually cause me to look at that viewpoint more critically than I would if someone else had -disagreed- with me.
Than could you please explain how "Your comparison is utter gak, pointless, and makes me question why you even said it." is an articulate argument that contributes to this discussion. Last time I looked, proper discussions required arguments to oppose someone's statements. what you posted is called an insult, not an argument. The purpose of this thread is discussion (which requires arguments), not insults.
If you oppose someone's statement, you are supposed to bring up arguments as to why they oppose it. Agreeing with someone's statement does not require arguments because you are supposed to share the arguments brought up by the other.
You oppose the statements of others without providing any arguments. You did that in your first post, you did it just now again. This is not good for a discussion and makes you look immature.
One person says: "nations don't pay more than cursory attention to country a unless it invades some other nations"
So other person says "country b doesn't invade people, so they're unimportant?"
That's utter bs, and if you can't see that, then I'm not going to bother. It's a nonsense, pointless comparison. There are so many other factors that make a country important/have other countries pay attention to them, -really basic stuff-, that to try some comparison like that whilst completely ignoring all those other factors is blatantly dishonest.
It'd be great if people would argue/debate honestly, but they wont. I guess I'm just tired of watching it and so react with hostility to it (which is pretty bad form in itself, I'll admit).
And actually, I did in my first response say why. So now go read and respond to Lord of Hats, his responses are far better and lack obvious hostility. All I can do is make an easy target for people trying to detract from what he says.
There are so many other factors that make a country important/have other countries pay attention to them, -really basic stuff-, that to try some comparison like that whilst completely ignoring all those other factors is blatantly dishonest.
This is where you are being totally unfair, and selective.
Several attempts were given to list Russia's relevance internationally, there was a cheap shot to make Russia appear relevant on one criteria alone when there are many more.
It'd be great if people would argue/debate honestly, but they wont. I guess I'm just tired of watching it and so react with hostility to it (which is pretty bad form in itself, I'll admit).
Agreed, but you are barking up the wrong tree. Comparing Russia's quietness to China or who invades or who does not is effective as a rebuke the the fallacy that Russia is only relevant because it rolls tanks into Ukraine
And actually, I did in my first response say why. So now go read and respond to Lord of Hats, his responses are far better and lack obvious hostility. All I can do is make an easy target for people trying to detract from what he says.
Lord of Hats has a different point of view, which is not shared and is on the side of underestimating Russia.
Point to return to is to compare Russia to China, both countries are frequently underestimated, both countries grow quietly rather than with full fanfare. Both nations do so by design. Most western countries want a higher profile.
Also it is time to look at public profile itself, its a poor judge of a nationstate who focuses on columnage or news time to judge a nations relevance. After all the media is fickle and public attention fractured, what do people talk about in the bars and at water coolers, the latest geopolitical flashpoint, or the latest ball game scores?
I political terms what Moscow says or things has always been relevant, though far less so under Yeltsin. Putin has restored power back into the Kremlin and is a serious player on the world stage, and not in the same way as Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Un.
There is a big, big distinction there. Invading does not equal the only measure of being noticed/importance, it is one of many. It is however, the main/only one that is attributed to Russia at this moment in time. That is what was being said. Now whether this is actually true or not (the the only thing Russia is important/noticed for is invading) is something that could be up for debate, but trying to frame it in the way you did is just wrong (that invading is the -only- criteria, as that is NOT what Lord of Hats meant).
You may notice if you read what I say I agree that it is fully possible for Russia to be important in other ways. I personally don't know what they are.
Also Mugabe & Kim*? The guys are pure evil but I would never really consider them world players at all (Putin is definitely one, ranking is where I'd debate).
*Maybe Kim. Has NK got reliable nukes they can launch over a few meters yet?
You may notice if you read what I say I agree that it is fully possible for Russia to be important in other ways. I personally don't know what they are.
Russia cant fail to be important as it has nukes, advanced military technology, some key technologies where it is practicably superior, a powerful intelligence community, a permanent security council seat, a large armed forces, large amounts of natural energy reserves, a huge population, large mineral reserves and a reputation of power.
Nukes will always make a country be noticed. Even NK got noticed before people started asking how they planned to fire nukes long distances.
Advanced tech, something I don't know about, I see it being disparaged a lot on this forum (not that that is conclusive evidence of anything), but I have heard its tech is sought after in the middle east so there's that. It would actually be pretty cool to see an impartial/independent comparison of known Russian/US techs in various fields.
I don't underestimate them. I in fact estimate them exactly as they are. hey have a security seat, vital resources, and a history, but that's not what I'm getting at. You talk as if Russia is some great contender in world events that can't possibly be ignored. Except that Russia is constantly ignored in world events except when they're throwing their army at some one. And that just doesn't say much. They're important in the same way any other country with a long Imperial history is important, but that doesn't correlate to being able to influence the world stage. They're that kid in the room who is constantly talking and everyone just goes about their business as usual with a nod and a "yeah sure okay w/e" because the Soviet Bloc doesn't exist anymore, and it's because of that bloc that Russia was able to project such a significant international presence. All these things you say Russia has, Russia has had for the past 30 years, but that hasn't stopped their international profile from sliding further and further away on the world stage. They've swung back a bit because of Ukraine (just like Georgia back in 08) but what about when Ukraine is over?
Russia's economy is a stack of cards (and it's crumbling). They have resources worth a lot of money, but those resources need foreign buyers a lot more than foreign buyers need them and the vital energy side of their economy has been kicked in the nuts by the Saudis (who seem pretty damn committed to wrecking domestic energy production in the US, Russia, and China)*. All the enthusiastic hopes for a post-Soviet Russia are pretty much dead. China is cashing in at Russia's expense.
They're more isolated than they have been in a century. I'm sorry. That's not a power to be reckoned with. Considered, but not reckoned with. If anything, I see this ending a lot like Afghanistan did (not well for Russia). This entire incident is going to backfire horribly for Russia, and when I say that I mean Putin, because Putin going bye bye can only end well for Russia really XD.
*And this honestly kind of highlights my point. You want to talk power and influence? Saudi Arabia can influence global energy economy like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Advanced tech, something I don't know about, I see it being disparaged a lot on this forum (not that that is conclusive evidence of anything), but I have heard its tech is sought after in the middle east so there's that. It would actually be pretty cool to see an impartial/independent comparison of known Russian/US techs in various fields.
The issue isn't so much their tech, but rather their ability to implement it (and finance it). Take the Sukhoi T-50, their new fighter program. Serious flaws have become apparent in the aircraft (namely, it lights itself on fire), but the problem is being ignored so that the Russia MIC can force a horribly unrealistic time table on delivery and production. The same problem seems to be cropping up in the Armata. Both weapons are technically impressive, but all you have to do is look back at the T-90 to see how Russia's military infrastructure is as decrepit as it's military. There's reasonable skepticism about their actual ability to pull these things off.
If you had made an actual argument in the first place, who knows? Maybe you could have swayed me to your viewpoint. But we won't know if you don't put forth an actual argument
I have, you refuse to read, we both know you wont be swayed. Evidence: Most of your posts in OT. Shrug. Agree to ignore each other, or not, because I don't really need your agreement.
MrDwhitey wrote: To be fair, it does seem you did not read, so you're not lying.
Part of it was pretty insulting as has been said and admitted.
I miss the tl:dr from your post, it felt good.
The tl;dr was supposed to refer to your post, not mine. Though on reflection it does actually apply to mine more. I suppose I should add it back in.
Just finished a 12 hour factory shift, still catching up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: I have, you refuse to read, we both know you wont be swayed. Evidence: Most of your posts in OT. Shrug. Agree to ignore each other, or not, because I don't really need your agreement.
Not true. Ketara often sways me. If you follow his posts you'd see why.
*Or perhaps its Kanluwen. Always get those two confused.
the ancient wrote: If they want to build a super carrier, What are you going to do to stop them.
Do anything? Russia has a fiscal blackhole, money wasted on this carrier is money they can’t use to pour in to the Ukraine or any other border nation they decide to screw around with. In terms of power balance this kind of nonsense improves the positions of the West, as it makes Russia less stable.
I mean, I guess in the interests of global stability it’d be better that money was in the bank and Russia wasn’t more likely to fall over, especially given the nukes and all that. But money or not they’re not particularly stable with the current oligarch in power, so…
1. G8 economy even allowing for extensive sanctions.
The G8 was formed in the 1970s, and represents historic power, not present power. Even then, Russia has been suspended.
And while it still hangs around in 5th or 6th place in economic rankings, that only goes to show how misleading rankings can be when some countries are much, much bigger than the rest. Russia’s economy is about a fifth of the US – comparing them on equal footing is like comparing the UK with Algeria.
2. Permanent member of the security council.
France is as well, but it’d be pretty stupid to go around claiming France has the ability to take on the global community.
3. Largest nuclear arsenal.
4. Able to invade western countries and get away with it.
These two are related. Russia’s nuclear arsenal gives it the ability to dick around with countries on its border, and the rest of the world treads carefully for fear of escalation. But that doesn’t put it on parity with those countries in a real sense. Russia doesn’t get to drive or direct world direction, it just gets to sit in the corner and try to get away with stuff.
5. Massive population, land mass and natural resources.
All of which are dependant on proper utilisation, on building an efficient economy. Something that kleptocracies like Russia have always struggled with.
Underestimate Russia at your peril, they suffered economically under Yeltsin, something Putin is rectifying. On paper the economy is poor, but that is a result of economic warfare waged against Russia at present. Yet even that is not having serious effect.
Not having a serious effect? The total market cap of Russia’s stock market is less than Apple. And it isn’t driven by the sanctions, but by the basic reality of the Russian economy – a highly corrupt oligarch can only compete in resource extraction. And when the price of oil goes down…
Not having a serious effect? The total market cap of Russia’s stock market is less than Apple. And it isn’t driven by the sanctions, but by the basic reality of the Russian economy – a highly corrupt oligarch can only compete in resource extraction. And when the price of oil goes down…
I'd be more worried that the world ends up in the hands of unelected multi-nationals than that a nation like Russia is reasserting itself in its traditional sphere of influence.
Computron wrote: I'd be more worried that the world ends up in the hands of unelected multi-nationals than that a nation like Russia is reasserting itself in its traditional sphere of influence.
The issues are linked, but in the opposite way - if Russia continues to flounder, then it leaves far greater scope for Russian and international corporate interests to wield greater power.
I am not worried about this super carrier, i am more worried about the sell off of cold war weaponry, are all Russia's Cold war's Nuke's accounted for?
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am not worried about this super carrier, i am more worried about the sell off of cold war weaponry, are all Russia's Cold war's Nuke's accounted for?
I doubt they'd tell anyone if they weren't. Nobody wants to be "that country" who loses a bomb and has it end up in the wrong hands.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am not worried about this super carrier, i am more worried about the sell off of cold war weaponry, are all Russia's Cold war's Nuke's accounted for?
I doubt they'd tell anyone if they weren't. Nobody wants to be "that country" who loses a bomb and has it end up in the wrong hands.
.....Now I havee an idea for an action comedy, with whacky hijinks where newbie russian agents have to recover a lost nuke.
The twist will be is the Drivers GPS just ran out of power.
Grey Templar wrote: I doubt they'd tell anyone if they weren't. Nobody wants to be "that country" who loses a bomb and has it end up in the wrong hands.
I thought Russia still had a few suitcase bombs unaccounted for
Grey Templar wrote: I doubt they'd tell anyone if they weren't. Nobody wants to be "that country" who loses a bomb and has it end up in the wrong hands.
I thought Russia still had a few suitcase bombs unaccounted for
Putin, or anyone else is hardly going to give nuclear status to Dakka. So this is just hearsay.
Saying Russia has nukes missing is like saying Saddam had them. Its a good bit of scaremongering that is not easily verifiable.
Orlanth wrote: Sea power is important, but it involves serveral factors.
1. Local shore patrol.
2. Mobile tactical missile platforms
3. Mobile strategic weapopn platforms
4. Submersible/stealth units.
5. Shore based tactical missile platforms
6. Logistical support
Some assets are mixtures of several components
So a carrier fleet normally comprises all six, those the fourth section will belong to the attacvhed submarine asset and the group has no stealth capability of itself. That being said against a mook state carrier fleets are very stealthy.
in most cases of carrier group based power projection the target country never gets to know where the carrier group is.
Now the Soviets lacked that capability due to their outlook. It was an oversight for most of the timeline of the Soviet Union and one that would have been addressed by the mid 90's had the Soviert Union persisted.
However soviets did have all the right technologies.
The offensive fleet was almost entirely submarine based.
Backed up by the awesome strength of Soviet Naval Aviation. Killing opposed carrier groups would not be a provblem, either the submarine force was sufficient or the long range naval bombers were sufficient bioth could achieve target saturation and by having two methods to achieve the kill there was an element of future proofing. The Soviet carrier groups, and they did have them, were mostly surface cover for their boomer fleets and served valid purpose in that regard.
Instead of carrier fleets the Soviet union would engage in power projection with manifestos and assault rifles. By and large it worked and carrier fleets were an insufficient counter.
Post Soviet Union US carrier fleets have been let off the leash somewhat and as a rsult the Russians and Chiones want to join and play the same game. Russia sticks to its core competencies but also wants a carrier fleet fgor power projection.
China is just playing with the technology. Chines power projection works by a sequential annexation of international waters, and it looks like they will get what they want.
Chines carriers don't need to be effective, they only need to be there, Chinas reach is based on shore based aviation range and local water geography.
Besides Chinas tech is deliberately understated, they dont push their new toys, they withhold them, and prefer to appear weaker than they actually are. If anyone things China is backward they are still looking at the nation through 70's goggles.
We don't even have the specs for the current generation of Chinese technology, and with security that good I think its backed with good quality too. I think they are much better and wheedling info out of the west than the other way around.
I agree with every word Orlanth just typed.
Relaying.
The Soviet carrier fleets were very heavily tied in with shore based naval aviation, to the extent the support should be considered organic.
If the Kirov wanted support from wings of Backfires it didnt have to go to another department or service to get them, they were already directly allocated.
Western fleets less so, it has to go through the Pentagon etc. While in modern times that decision can be made quickly enough this is only because carrier operations are conducted at a fairly leisurely pace as they are there as a bully squad. Soviet carrier groups were for protecting the boomer fleet from other major powers and so at a pinch needed to be able to work fluidly.
To put it more simply, Soviet surface naval forces were a defensive asset. Realistically the Soviets in a cold war gone hot scenario would be fighting a land war in Europe and Asia. Their surface navy wasn't really intended to travel out of range of land based missiles and aircraft, rather they were there to keep American and NATO naval forces busy and away form striking distance and hunt down submarines, with a secondary role of providing support to nearby ground forces as they advanced across Europe, etc.
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
Same could be said about the state of the American arsenal. Both the Navy and the Air Force have had their fair share of fuckups as of late (though the Navy has been much better at keeping it quiet), and neither of them have actually used a nuke in some time.
Massive population
We have different measures of massive it seems, Orlanth.
Russia is in no way more economically resilient than western countries. Whereas our economies are based on fiscal systems, Russias is pretty much entirely based on fossil fuel sales, hence why the huge drop in the price of oil has torpedoed the russian economy.
And the people may have been satisfied with less in the 80s but now? Russians enjoy their luxury items just as much as the west.
You would be incorrect. Russias economy is way more insulated and self-reliant than ours is, this is a vestige of the Cold War days where they were the boogeyman of the world and the only other countries that would play nice with them were puppet states and backwater regions. Whereas the "western" (it stretch far beyond just the western hemisphere) world developed a heavily integrated economic system with a heavy flow of goods across borders, the Russians essentially had to produce all those goods themselves. Even to this day Russia exports far more than it imports, with both imports and exports being a relatively small portion of its total economic activity. Both Russias imports and exports are also very diversified, IIRC no single country accounts for more than roughly 10% or so of its total imports or exports, and a lot of the countries it deals with don't exactly care much about UN or US led sanctions. The loss of imports to Russia is no big deal, for the most part its consumer/luxury goods or things that we could otherwise go without. The loss of exports hurts a lot harder, but Russias chief exports are things that they wouldn't necessarily want to export if it came time for a shooting war anyway, so its not exactly a loss.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
Except for how it does as a matter of international policy when it comes to anyone who wants to get anything done through the UN security council.
6. The vast, vast majority of which is intertwined with the ISS. Pull the EU funding away and the Russian Space Program will cease to exist.
Except for the US funding thats propping it up too? BTW, that funding is kind of essential to both the EU and US space programs as well, as we are all fairly reliant on the Russians at the moment for anything other than satellite launches.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
Most of the worlds military arsenals, including the US, is older than 20 years, a lot of them far far older than that. A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-2s? Built in the 70s and 80s. C-130s, B-52s? 50s and 60s. And so on and so forth. Russia has actually done a fairly good job of keeping a small portion of its military forces on the cutting edge, but only a very small portion, though it is showing a lot of signs of more widespread modernization as of the last 2-4 years.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Thats not even remotely true.
We won the Cold War too cupcake don't you forget it. You know how we stop Russia getting a carrier much less a super carrier? Sit back and fething laugh at one of the giants laid low. One pissant strong man dictator does not an empire make. The Russian army can't even make it's recruiting quotas with a draft, and vaunted Russian heavy industry can't even maintain the surface combatants it has now, and those were so poorly manufactured sailing with the Iranian navy's speedboat flotilla is safer.
Russia wants to try and make a carrier? Cool. I'll pop some popcorn for the outtakes of the resulting failures. Hell, when you have to pay the French to build your ships for you because their yards simply are not capable.... not to mention we're talking about a failure of a navy that couldn't even get a proper CATOBAR carrier when it was strong and had actual financial backing. Nukes and a pretension of strength is all Russia has left. No pride, no respect, and quite shortly, no money.
We didn't win the Cold War, Russia lost it, but thats a separate thread unto itself. Also, it sounds like you're using information thats a few years out of date (recruiting quotas and surface combatants) considering Russia has actually had some personnel surpluses as of late and they've actually been retiring ships to make room for new vessels. As for the CATOBAR carrier, Russia was trying to do that when it was already collapsing and DIDNT have the financial backing. You can't even really claim that they didn't have the capability to do it, because they cancelled the project well before they even made it to the point where that determination could be made (something like 18% complete).
The Sino-Russian relationship is not a close one as one might think. Remember there were division level tank engagements between the Russians and Chinese not too damn long ago.
Wake up dude, its not the 90s anymore. While I wouldn't call China and Russia friends, they are certainly on much better terms now than they have been in decades, and it doesn't hurt that for the most part the both have a lot of geopolitical interests in common, meaning that even if they're not formally working together, there is a pretty strong level of cooperation between them.
Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.
By your metric the only major player on the world stage is the US.
The issue isn't so much their tech, but rather their ability to implement it (and finance it). Take the Sukhoi T-50, their new fighter program. Serious flaws have become apparent in the aircraft (namely, it lights itself on fire), but the problem is being ignored so that the Russia MIC can force a horribly unrealistic time table on delivery and production. The same problem seems to be cropping up in the Armata. Both weapons are technically impressive, but all you have to do is look back at the T-90 to see how Russia's military infrastructure is as decrepit as it's military. There's reasonable skepticism about their actual ability to pull these things off.
As opposed to the F-22 that suffocates its pilots? Orrr the F-35 that that still cannot do much of anything that it was promised to do? Or how about those brand new multi-mission Littoral Combat Ships that still don't have any of the multi-mission capabilities that they were promised to have, let alone the fact that they've already had to drydock some of them due to stress fractures and powerplant/engine failures (oh, and PS, some of them are made from some lovely flammable aluminum!). To say nothing of the dozens of military programs we've cancelled over the past few years because they cost too damned much and simply didn't work. Its easy to point a finger at a single defense project and take that as evidence of a serious failure in industry or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily mean its correct.
These two are related. Russia’s nuclear arsenal gives it the ability to dick around with countries on its border, and the rest of the world treads carefully for fear of escalation. But that doesn’t put it on parity with those countries in a real sense. Russia doesn’t get to drive or direct world direction, it just gets to sit in the corner and try to get away with stuff.
Funny, because Russias recent behavior came as a bit of a serious slap to the face at the Pentagon, to the extent that the US military is being forced to reorient itself and reconsider its force structure and future plans as a result. On top of that it seems that it in some part inspired Argentina to push ahead with plans to modernize its own military (once again with plans for retaking Las Malvinas), though they backed out of the deal for Russian Sukhois over delivery concerns and went with a Chinese arms deal instead. Oh, and they've also been backing Iran pretty heavily, who are now operating openly with relative impunity in Iraq and Syria, as well as in Afghanistans western border regions. Lets not forget that Sweden and Finland signed a mutual defense pact recently, as well as signing 'host nation' agreements with NATO allowing NATO nations to deploy troops within their borders, as well as public opinion in Sweden now being in favor of joining NATO. Thats certainly driving a lot of current events int he world, for a country thats supposedly just sitting in the corner 'trying to get away with stuff'.
In short I'm going to end my post with this. A lot of you are playing around with very outdated notions about Russia. While I don't see this super-carrier as anything other than a pipedream, they are far more capable and modernized than any of you realize or give them credit for, they are also bigger players in global politics than most of you seem to realize. I cant say I blame you, since Putin took office he's suppressed the Russian media heavily, not just as a means to control his own people, but also as a means to control the flow of information in and out of his own borders. As a result, combined with our preoccupation with the Middle East, as well as the focus on a rising China, western media doesn't tend to have a lot to say about Russia giving the illusion that they aren't relevant and that things haven't changed their over the past 15 years. Even more detrimental is, and I believe Putin said this, "The West knows it does not understand China. The West doesn't know that it doesn not understand Russia." Its an easy mistake to make. The Chinese are different from the West, its obvious from the language they speak, to the food they eat, the shape of their eyes, color of their skin, their history, cultural values, etc. are all very obviously different from our own. Russias differences are far more subtle. They look a lot like us in the west, their language is a little bit different, but not altogether different from the languages spoken across half of Europe, their history is heavily intertwined with our own, etc. But the reality is that Russia is about as culturally different from any country in the west as China is, and thats a very dangerous factor for any of us to overlook.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
8. Most of which is at least 20 years old and is in various states of decay and Russia apparently lacks the funds and infrastructure to modernize or even maintain it.
Most of the worlds military arsenals, including the US, is older than 20 years, a lot of them far far older than that. A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-2s? Built in the 70s and 80s. C-130s, B-52s? 50s and 60s. And so on and so forth. Russia has actually done a fairly good job of keeping a small portion of its military forces on the cutting edge, but only a very small portion, though it is showing a lot of signs of more widespread modernization as of the last 2-4 years.
People keep saying this but all I see is Russia's military struggling in conflicts against very minor opposition. For supposedly such a modern force, they sure are taking a beating in Ukraine.
You would be incorrect. Russias economy is way more insulated and self-reliant than ours is, this is a vestige of the Cold War days where they were the boogeyman of the world and the only other countries that would play nice with them were puppet states and backwater regions. Whereas the "western" (it stretch far beyond just the western hemisphere) world developed a heavily integrated economic system with a heavy flow of goods across borders, the Russians essentially had to produce all those goods themselves. Even to this day Russia exports far more than it imports, with both imports and exports being a relatively small portion of its total economic activity. Both Russias imports and exports are also very diversified, IIRC no single country accounts for more than roughly 10% or so of its total imports or exports, and a lot of the countries it deals with don't exactly care much about UN or US led sanctions. The loss of imports to Russia is no big deal, for the most part its consumer/luxury goods or things that we could otherwise go without. The loss of exports hurts a lot harder, but Russias chief exports are things that they wouldn't necessarily want to export if it came time for a shooting war anyway, so its not exactly a loss.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Thats not even remotely true.
You are wrong. Close to 40% of Russia's exports and imports are from countries in the EU / US. Also Russia's trade surplus is about to become a deficit due to the sanctions.
Quite correct actually, if you read the original quote with a bit of emphasis on the words 'world stage'. Russia has little to no conventional distance fighting capabilities, no cultural soft power outside of Eastern Europe, and and no real economic muscle behind it any longer. The occasional South American/Middle Eastern government signs a symbolic treaty with them every once in a while to stick the fingers up to the Americans, or they sign a minor trade for armaments technology, but that is more or less the extent of Russia's capacity to be a player on the 'World' stage.
By your metric the only major player on the world stage is the US.
Read closer. I didn't claim all of those facets were required in order to be a power on the world stage. But you need at least a few of them to qualify. Britain has distance fighting capabilities, a large economy, and a certain degree of soft power. China has a massive economic muscle, and has set about developing their soft power in recent years. etcetc
You cannot claim to be a power with serious international significance when nobody outside your immediate region is susceptible to your economy, your military power, or your cultural influences. That's a fact. And right now, the only significant international cards Russia has are their ICBM's.
In short I'm going to end my post with this. A lot of you are playing around with very outdated notions about Russia. While I don't see this super-carrier as anything other than a pipedream, they are far more capable and modernized than any of you realize or give them credit for,
I'm fully cognisant of what the Russians are capable of. If you intend to challenge me on the above, please post concrete examples of other countries outside of Russia's immediate borders that are dependent on Russia economically, susceptible to influence culturally, or vulnerable to invasion militarily.
If you cannot do these things, I strongly suggest you advocate a new set of criteria by which to judge a nations international significance, and match Russia to it.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?
If Russia's nuclear weapons program is in the same state as her Navy and Airforce at present time that strong poker hand might just be a pair of twos. Those nukes actually have to leave their silos you know?
Same could be said about the state of the American arsenal. Both the Navy and the Air Force have had their fair share of fethups as of late (though the Navy has been much better at keeping it quiet), and neither of them have actually used a nuke in some time.
Yes, but I believe the US messups weren't problems with the hardware and more with some loosy goosy protocol. I'm sure all our nukes are fully functional. And I'm sure at the very least a majority of Russia's nukes are as well.
chaos0xomega wrote: 2. That was a legacy from the Soviet Union and has absolutely no bearing on Russia's current importance in the world stage.
Except for how it does as a matter of international policy when it comes to anyone who wants to get anything done through the UN security council.
The UN security council as about as much influence today as the World Boyscout Association.
You do not get out much, do you? Or read newspapers, or watch the news. You could even just see the news right here on the internet and realise how silly you are being.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?
Why?
Because it doesn't provide context. Is a million dollars a lot? That depends on what it will buy you. If you spend $652 bn and I spend $42 bn on two private armies and mine still gets better stuff, bigger numbers etc., why does it matter if your economy is ten times my size?
Note that this is no way supposed to be a comment on the capabilities of the US or Russian militaries, just an example.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
And by the same measure Russia's GDP is half that of India, and I don't see too many people referring to India as a global power.
Except for how it does as a matter of international policy when it comes to anyone who wants to get anything done through the UN security council.
If a state's primary claim to international relevance is being a permanent member of the Security Council, then that state probably isn't especially relevant.
9. For producing what exactly? Russia currently imports almost everything, from computers to large machinery, cars, trucks, medicine, communications equipment... What is this industrial infrastructure supposed to produce exactly?
Thats not even remotely true.
The production of finished goods is a very small part of the Russian economy, at least if you ignore refined petroleum. Roughly 60% of it is driven by retail and wholesale trade, manufacturing, financial services, transportation, communication, utilities, real estate and construction. Of the remaining 40% only 14% is derived from manufacturing. Virtually all finished consumer goods sold in Russia are imported, this is why they make up nearly all of Russia's imports.
Wake up dude, its not the 90s anymore. While I wouldn't call China and Russia friends, they are certainly on much better terms now than they have been in decades, and it doesn't hurt that for the most part the both have a lot of geopolitical interests in common, meaning that even if they're not formally working together, there is a pretty strong level of cooperation between them.
What geopolitical interests would those be? I think you're mistaking relative ambivalence for cooperation.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?
Why?
Because it doesn't provide context. Is a million dollars a lot? That depends on what it will buy you. If you spend $652 bn and I spend $42 bn on two private armies and mine still gets better stuff, bigger numbers etc., why does it matter if your economy is ten times my size?
Note that this is no way supposed to be a comment on the capabilities of the US or Russian militaries, just an example.
Yes, but the PPP rate is mainly useful for assessing living standards in each country because it adjusts for the costs of selected goods within a country's domestic market. It doesn't really translate that well when you up the level of comparison from a single consumer to a nation state because for international buying, you need to use the actual exchange rates, which means you want the GDP because it is listed using those very same exchange rates that would take effect for international purchases.
To try and use your analogy, to build an army you need raw materials like metals, minerals and oil. And those are all available through internationally regulated prices where you can't really apply a PPP rate.
1. Russia does not have a "G8 economy", they are effectively in 9th place and have even seen their membership to the G8 suspended.
Err, they're the 6th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity. Being suspended from the G8 doesn't change the fact that you still have a massive industrialized economy.
Purchasing Power Parity is not a good way to measure the relative size of a country's economy. Its only really useful in determining the comparative purchasing power of its citizens.
Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?
Why?
Because it doesn't provide context. Is a million dollars a lot? That depends on what it will buy you. If you spend $652 bn and I spend $42 bn on two private armies and mine still gets better stuff, bigger numbers etc., why does it matter if your economy is ten times my size?
Note that this is no way supposed to be a comment on the capabilities of the US or Russian militaries, just an example.
Yes, but the PPP rate is mainly useful for assessing living standards in each country because it adjusts for the costs of selected goods within a country's domestic market. It doesn't really translate that well when you up the level of comparison from a single consumer to a nation state because for international buying, you need to use the actual exchange rates, which means you want the GDP because it is listed using those very same exchange rates that would take effect for international purchases.
To try and use your analogy, to build an army you need raw materials like metals, minerals and oil. And those are all available through internationally regulated prices where you can't really apply a PPP rate.
Fair enough, but that assumes that the raw materials aren't available domestically, something that is very much the case when discussing Russia.
For supposedly such a modern force, they sure are taking a beating in Ukraine.
Are you sure about this? Please give us some facts.
Russian invasion of the Ukraine started in February of 2014.
We are now in February of 2015.
The US destroyed two countries in less time than that and with a lot less casualties.
Somebody seen some russian aircraft? Some KA-50 or KA-52 (or other helicopters) attacking ukrainian armor? Or some interceptors defending Donetsk and others cities from air bombers and attackers? Or modern war goes without aircraft with AA only by SAMs? Or seen somebody russian spetsnaz with Abakan or VSS or AEK? Or any modern tanks? Why russians are invading Ukraine with forces smaller the Ukrainian, taking into account that nobody cared about ukrainian army for 24 years and it is mostly useless against any adequate army, but not rebels. Add to this lethal and non-lethal support from Western countries and you will see that russians are completely stupid or somewhere you are wrong. I agree that Russia supports rebels, also as Kiev has western support, but there is no invasion.
By the way, ukrainian army was almost wiped out in September 2014 and faced serious catastrophe at Debaltsevo in February 2015.
P.S. If this russian aggression, why almost all refugees are going to Russia?
Fair enough, but that assumes that the raw materials aren't available domestically, something that is very much the case when discussing Russia.
Outside of a total war scenario, in which economic concerns become secondary, domestic availability is irrelevant.
Just making sure that I'm understanding it correctly, that would be because any materials that are used on the home market would be part of the GDP anyway, making the choice between spending $5 bn on rare earth metal imports, on one hand, or not selling $5 bn worth of rare earth metal exports functionally the same, correct?
Just making sure that I'm understanding it correctly, that would be because any materials that are used on the home market would be part of the GDP anyway, making the choice between spending $5 bn on rare earth metal imports, on one hand, or not selling $5 bn worth of rare earth metal exports functionally the same, correct?
Well, it isn't really matter of importing foreign materials, and not exporting domestic materials. Its a matter of buying foreign materials, or buying domestic materials. In a limited war scenario the state (and the arms manufacturers which support it) pay market price regardless. However, in a total ware scenario the state has the hypothetical ability to ban exports of a key material and force producers to accept compensation below market price. This is universally bad for the economy, but that takes a back seat to production in such conflicts.
I think I just pissed myself a little.
but....
maybe
