Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
"Keeping quiet"

and

"Not being paid attention to"

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."

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 jhe90 wrote:
Better than chinas at least!

A old Soviet hulk they finished that's design is entirely outdated and 2-3 decades old.

At least China's isn't rotting next to some radioactive meltdown facility!

 MrDwhitey wrote:
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 was me yes.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

That's utter bs, and if you can't see that, then I'm not going to bother. It's a nonsense, pointless comparison.

Actually not, invading people was given as the criteria for importance there, it was fair to point that out as false.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

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

 MrDwhitey wrote:

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?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

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.

is on the side of underestimating Russia.

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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
"Keeping quiet"

and

"Not being paid attention to"

are two vastly different things. Your comparison is utter gak, pointless, and makes me question why you even said it.

tl;dr: "I'm right, you're wrong".

To be fair, it does seem you did not read, so you're not lying.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, it does seem you did not read, so you're not lying.

You missed my point.

As another said, your post wasn't an argument. It was an insult.

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.

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…

 Orlanth wrote:
Oh how wrong.

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…

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

Using normal GDP calculations, Russia is in 9th.

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/rus/