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.

PhantomViper wrote:

For supposedly such a modern force, they sure are taking a beating in Ukraine.

Are you sure about this? Please give us some facts.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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 A lot of you are playing around with very outdated notions about Russia.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.

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

Then again, the size of a country's economy doesn't tell us much without PPP adjustment, so what's your point?

Why?

chaos0xomega 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?

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.

Asadjud wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Asadjud wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

It has now become clear you live in a different reality.

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

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.

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

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.

Wrong button.

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Asadjud wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.