Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[213374U]

I think we could reasonably settle this with reference to some actual facts, if anyone is willing to field them:

 

1. Economy

1a. GDP

1b. GDP per adult

1c. Growth figures for GDP over last twenty years and predicted

1d. Population growth rates, last twenty years and predicted

1e. Inward foreign investment

1f. Dependence of economy on raw materials

1g. Concentration of wealth

1h. Corruption figures or assessments, by people paid to judge these things, in context of countries like UK or Nigeria

1i. Market assessed rating for Russian government bonds

 

2. Diplomatic

2a. Countries aligned with Russia (open to suggestions on how you judge this)

2b. Quantity of foreign aid given out by Russia over last twenty years

2c. Unilateral treaties between Russia and other countries

 

3. Military

3a. Endurance - Raw numbers of military

3b. Striking power - carriers, long range aircraft and missiles (conventional)

3c Technology - any suggestions welcome, but suggest some sort of adjusted budgetary figure

 

Yep, that would probably be a good set of criteria for assessment of "great powers"—before 1945. Today, anyone with enough nukes to turn the planet into one huge glass parking lot and the means to deliver them, has more influence than anyone who doesn't. That alone puts Russia in the big leagues, because any use of conventional force carries the risk of escalation. The whole diplomacy game changes when war is absolutely out of the question.

 

A purely economic perspective (and one limited to GDP, at that) is going to paint a decevingly weak picture of Russia, which is why I cannot subscribe to Rostere's purely economic assessment. For reference, GDP in 1964 for the European members of NATO minus Luxembourg and Iceland (Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, UK, Turkey) was $2.389 tn, while for the USSR it was $1.010 tn (edit: adjusted for inflation, 1990 int'l dollars). This is at the time of peak Soviet influence in world affairs, and I'm not even factoring in the US or the rest of western Europe. Try and convince someone in 1964 that the USSR wasn't a great power. Hell, try and convince anyone that they weren't a superpower. Granted, it's not the eight-fold difference you have now, but then neither are there Combined Arms Armies deployed to overrun Germany in seven days anymore, which were as much a pillar of Soviet influence as their strategic arsenal and their raw economic output. The case of pre-war Germany is also interesting, because GDP figures cannot reflect the critical shortages of raw materials that ultimately doomed their war effort from an economic standpoint—and it still took the combined might of the Allies and Soviets to defeat them with a nominal economic power that was just ~70% of the combined GDP of France and the UK in 1938.

 

The bottom line is, when push comes to shove, GDP isn't going to be a good method to compare the relative weights of countries, by itself.

Edited April 9, 2014 by 213374U

[Agiel]

Just a prelude for a later post:

 

With the F-22's flyaway cost of ~$150 million, with 1% of the US's GDP, the United States could afford 1,200 F-22 Raptors, if it so chose to build them (though this would not include the costs of restarting production for them).

 

With 1% of Russia's GDP, and assuming the projected flyaway cost of $60 million for the PAK-FA T-50 still undegroing development and evaluation (which Sukhoi has flat out admitted will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or the F-35, or as advanced in terms of avionics and armaments) holds true, Russia can only afford to build little more than 300.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Agiel

[Zoraptor]

The inverse is true about research and infrastructure. The money you spent yesterday will accumulate additional money and resources for you to spend tomorrow.

Now who is reducing power to Europe Universalis levels? Gotta build those workshops and get that extra 1 tax income per province, it'll be a cumulative gain while building pikemen and knights is a cumulative cost! If you want an alternative economic analysis we can always look at debt levels, in which Russia comes out far better with the western nations' debt still increasing, indeed somewhere like Japan which you have previously suggested as a potential replacement for Russia on the UNSC is, basically, insolvent with their 200%+ debt to GDP level, no meaningful economic growth in decades and demographics falling off a cliff (far more so than Russia, whose population is actually increasing again).

 

Simple fact is that being a Great Power primarily entails nothing other than being able to do (most of, or even the US wouldn't be one) what you want to do and be able to block (most of) what you don't want others to do, and that is it. You can achieve those aims diplomatically, militarily or economically- it doesn't matter, in terms of being a great power only the end result does. Russia has nukes, all that is required militarily, economic leverage in energy supply, a UNSC seat and unlike the genuine second tier powers like France and the UK it isn't a great power bloc's satellite statelet and has an independent foreign policy that doesn't consist of pleasing their masters. She's behind the US and China of course, by a fair margin in both cases, but her next closest competitor is Daylight.

[Sarex]

Just a prelude for a later post:

 

With the F-22's flyaway cost of ~$150 million, with 1% of the US's GDP, the United States could afford 1,200 F-22 Raptors, if it so chose to build them (though this would not include the costs of restarting production for them).

 

With 1% of Russia's GDP, and assuming the projected flyaway cost of $60 million for the PAK-FA T-50 still undegroing development and evaluation (which Sukhoi has flat out admitted will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or the F-35, or as advanced in terms of avionics and armaments) holds true, Russia can only afford to build little more than 300.

 

I get it you are fascinated with the Airforce, but you can't win a war from air alone. Also that doesn't really mean anything, if an all out war broke out money wouldn't matter, what would matter are the resources and the factories that could be converted to military output in a short amount of time.

 

 

Military might is only a good short-term indicator. The military might of the UK and the US was rather laughable at the outbreak of WW2, yet in 1944 they were bombing the **** out of Germany, and not the other way around.

 

I'm not saying that any of the great powers is going to fight an all-out war against any other, in fact, I hold that as an impossibility barring massive collective mental illness of any country's leadership. It's ridiculous to talk about it, since there wouldn't be anything left to fight for, or maybe not even anything left to invade, if such a war were to occur.

 

If you think that "boss of your own back yard" is the criterion for being a great power, then you have very low standards. But let's hear a concrete definition of what a "great power" really is so that we can have a real discussion.

 

Funny you should say that. Russia that bore the brunt of the German force, during WW2 boosted their military output (production) to stupendous heights and would have conquered all of Germany(including the territories they gained in WW2) on their counter offensive had America not intervened to stop them. Also while Russia couldn't have won the war on it's own, it played the largest part in it.

 

Yes! His first years were great. Russia could be moving as swiftly forward now as then, they have only Putin's own isolationism and aggressive posturing to blame. That part wasn't so pronounced during his first years. Now the investors are withdrawing their moneybags.

 

Of course he is "scoring big points". Just like GWB did with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Right? Get real. Look at the economical facts. Meaningless jingoistic posturing will always appeal to stupid nationalistic knuckleheads, and nostalgic populations who wish for the days when the USSR was #2 and fail to see today's economic reality where Russia is competing with India and Brazil not to fall out of the top ten and not for the #1 spot. It would be easy peasy for Japan, Germany or China to freak out and start carving out their own South Ossetias and Abkhazias, countering the US at the UN (well, at least for China), getting much more attention than Russia. But they don't, they focus on tomorrow, and on building their economies. Meanwhile, Putin is looking for cheap sympathy with nationalists showing that "Russia is still a force to be reckoned with". Yeah. Who's playing the long game here, do you think?

 

You think GWB didn't score any points? Don't be naive. Just look at Agiel above if you have any doubts. Do you really think that Putin isn't playing the long game? If he let Ukraine go and let it eventually join the EU/NATO, he would have compromised the safety of Russia immensely. Ukraine is a buffer between the EU and Russia, without it Moscow is a stone throw away. You might think it paranoid, but you always plan for the worst case scenario, especially when the stakes are so high.

[Valsuelm]

I even don't want comment all these cool stories about economics. Just to say - by words of Western economists USA have first economics in the world, highest GDP blah-blah etc. But in same time US produce nothing ( exept arms ), all their economics is just virtual speculations on markets, real situation is totally different.

 

Oby speaks the truth here.

 

GDP is a number that has less and less bearing on the actual economic situation in any given nation. Western markets are incredibly overvalued, currencies are ultimately pinned on nothing and for the most part quite literally brought into being out of thin air and married to debt. Both markets and currencies are manipulated big time. There are absolutely insane amounts of debt out and about as a result and it's exponentially growing while enslaving more and more people and destroying more and more real tangible economy.

 

The U.S. economy, EU economy, as well as most other western economies are out over the abyss just waiting for the plunge. A plunge that is likely to come sooner than later, but it will come. A mathematical certainty that. The sociopaths running the western banking game (in many ways a ponzi scheme) behind all of this fantasy economics and their bought and paid for sociopathic government stooges will likely take us all to war than let it completely collapse and lose their power, and if they actually do let it completely collapse you'll see revolutions in more than a couple nations. My money is on a combination of both before it's all said and done. Either way, ugly times ahead. But quote yer GDPs and think it's the end all be all as much as you like, and champion your favorite harbinger(s) of the fascist state the UN and/or EU and think these are good things all you like. Really, a ten year old could figure out it's all a sham, it's definitely not rocket science, yet so many adults do not.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

...

Good for you for growing up in Russia, that really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

...

Which discussion at hand? My replay which providing some background about quality of life in Russia and conditions in its military in response to a post that spoke about that(because just like people who never been to USA, think that USA is all urban skyscrapers like NY with people with a single TV show accent, people have no idea about Russiam which is bigger and nothing like Moscow) , or your apologist rant, not liking how what I said reflect on Russia and trying to prove some crap about Russia being a major world power and hubris :/

 

 

I'm aware of the quality of life in Russia and most other places. I'm fairly well traveled, very well read, and while I have not yet been to Russia, I have numerous friends there, and from there. In fact I just has some amazing caviar a couple days ago brought back from there by a friend who was recently visiting her family. Politics are often discussed over dinner, wine, and caviar. I know it's not all super awesome amazing there for many people.  Newsflash, neither is the U.S. for a great many and growing number of people in it.

 

I think something is lost in translation in some of what you're saying though. You seem to be entirely misinterpreting who and what I was saying suffered from hubris.

 

You might find it amusing to know that there are many people in the U.S. itself that thinks New York is all urban skyscrapers with a single TV show accent. It never ceases to sadden me when I meet them. There are stupid people all over the planet.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Rostere]

Yep, that would probably be a good set of criteria for assessment of "great powers"—before 1945. Today, anyone with enough nukes to turn the planet into one huge glass parking lot and the means to deliver them, has more influence than anyone who doesn't. That alone puts Russia in the big leagues, because any use of conventional force carries the risk of escalation. The whole diplomacy game changes when war is absolutely out of the question.

 

No, I would say that economic power is an even better indicator of total power today, because of a more fluid market in general. Economic power is more easily interchangeable for military power today than 100 years ago. As I've said, it's not very hard to build a nuke. In fact, much easier than building a proper safe nuclear power plant. It's true that nukes give you a lot of international power in some sense, but in other ways they hamper your progress as they undermine trust. Here's a list of countries who could reasonably build nuclear weapons but have obviously chosen not to: Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan and... well, I won't even bother to list them all, you get the point. You can conclude that you don't need to have nukes to be powerful (like Germany or Japan), you only need someone who is on your side with nuclear weapons. If by "great power" you mean "country with nuclear weapons", then yes, Russia is a great power. But it's a stupid definition because a lot of countries have then chosen not to be great powers, simply because they felt they didn't need to be one.

 

 

A purely economic perspective (and one limited to GDP, at that) is going to paint a deceivingly weak picture of Russia, which is why I cannot subscribe to Rostere's purely economic assessment. For reference, GDP in 1964 for the European members of NATO minus Luxembourg and Iceland (Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, UK, Turkey) was $2.389 tn, while for the USSR it was $1.010 tn (edit: adjusted for inflation, 1990 int'l dollars). This is at the time of peak Soviet influence in world affairs, and I'm not even factoring in the US or the rest of western Europe. Try and convince someone in 1964 that the USSR wasn't a great power. Hell, try and convince anyone that they weren't a superpower. Granted, it's not the eight-fold difference you have now, but then neither are there Combined Arms Armies deployed to overrun Germany in seven days anymore, which were as much a pillar of Soviet influence as their strategic arsenal and their raw economic output. The case of pre-war Germany is also interesting, because GDP figures cannot reflect the critical shortages of raw materials that ultimately doomed their war effort from an economic standpoint—and it still took the combined might of the Allies and Soviets to defeat them with a nominal economic power that was just ~70% of the combined GDP of France and the UK in 1938.

 

The bottom line is, when push comes to shove, GDP isn't going to be a good method to compare the relative weights of countries, by itself.

 

But no one is saying the USSR was not a great power then, they absolutely were. I'm saying Russia is not a great power now, for economic reasons you state yourself.

 

 

The inverse is true about research and infrastructure. The money you spent yesterday will accumulate additional money and resources for you to spend tomorrow.

Now who is reducing power to Europe Universalis levels? Gotta build those workshops and get that extra 1 tax income per province, it'll be a cumulative gain while building pikemen and knights is a cumulative cost! If you want an alternative economic analysis we can always look at debt levels, in which Russia comes out far better with the western nations' debt still increasing, indeed somewhere like Japan which you have previously suggested as a potential replacement for Russia on the UNSC is, basically, insolvent with their 200%+ debt to GDP level, no meaningful economic growth in decades and demographics falling off a cliff (far more so than Russia, whose population is actually increasing again).

 

You're right about Japan's awful demographics, but Russia's are also worse than Europe's, which really should say something. Let's look at the debt issue. Japan owes almost all of it's debt to it's own populace and banks. The US owes much of it's debt to US banks. US banks are the largest political donors in the US. Now if we think about this for just a second. Obviously it's in the US banks' interest (pun not intended) to loan a lot of money to the US, which they will do for a profit. But if the US would actually go bankrupt from taking too many loans, the banks would lose a metric ****load of money. So it's in their interest to not ever let that happen. This is one of the reasons I think too much importance is given to the high debts of the US. The presidents, like GWB, may be stupid to 11 and be given leeway with insane projects as long as it does not interfere with the grand scheme of things, the guys who pay to put them in their place are not stupid. US banks are on top of the food chain of international creditors. If **** ever got serious, they would go to any length to secure their long-time interest in the US not going bankrupt.

 

It's the exact same situation as when an individual wants to loan from a bank. The bank obviously wants you to loan money, but not for you to go bankrupt. That's why you can't borrow any amount of money to buy new TVs if you don't have any income, and the same applies for the US.

 

The problem arises when a country borrows too much money from powerful creditors outside the own nation. If a country only borrows money from less powerful nations and from own banks, they're not in that much of a danger. Foreign interests like the IMF might want you to borrow money for them to get political leverage, but US banks would never want to significantly weaken the US.

 

 

Simple fact is that being a Great Power primarily entails nothing other than being able to do (most of, or even the US wouldn't be one) what you want to do and be able to block (most of) what you don't want others to do, and that is it. You can achieve those aims diplomatically, militarily or economically- it doesn't matter, in terms of being a great power only the end result does. Russia has nukes, all that is required militarily, economic leverage in energy supply, a UNSC seat and unlike the genuine second tier powers like France and the UK it isn't a great power bloc's satellite statelet and has an independent foreign policy that doesn't consist of pleasing their masters. She's behind the US and China of course, by a fair margin in both cases, but her next closest competitor is Daylight.

 

That's a very fuzzy and too vague definition of what a great power is. And as I've said earlier, just because you try to block other people's efforts (which makes you look important) you are not automatically important. If France or Britain had been as obstinate as Russia, they could also have averted the Syria intervention. Just because the UK and France are allies of the US, they don't get to demonstrate their "power" as often. This is not to be interpreted as a weakness. In fact, the more friends you've got, the stronger you are. Which Russia does not seem to realize when they are committing blunder after blunder alienating Ukraine which is the only large country which could potentially be their ally.

 

You think GWB didn't score any points? Don't be naive. Just look at Agiel above if you have any doubts. Do you really think that Putin isn't playing the long game? If he let Ukraine go and let it eventually join the EU/NATO, he would have compromised the safety of Russia immensely. Ukraine is a buffer between the EU and Russia, without it Moscow is a stone throw away. You might think it paranoid, but you always plan for the worst case scenario, especially when the stakes are so high.

 

Just think for one second about what you just wrote. "If he let Ukraine go and let it eventually join the EU/NATO".

 

Well, damn it, that's exactly just what he did. After he took clumsily Crimea by force, cancelled the "brotherly" price on gas, and instigated protests in Eastern Ukraine. He's ruined any hope of regaining personal trust among many Ukrainians, despite the historical closeness of the Russian and the Ukrainian people and the great potential for an alliance. Grabbing Crimea and this recent bellicose posturing cemented the picture of Russia as a hostile and dangerous imperialist nation to many Ukrainians and perhaps more importantly to other Eastern Europeans and Central Asians. Russian standing among former Soviet nations has probably never been so low. The people who wanted the Ukraine to join the EU must have jumped with glee every second of Putin's extremely clumsy, heavy-handed, naïve and idiotic handling of the conflict in Ukraine. He has in effect not created a buffer, but given away Ukraine to the EU for free to move his own borders forward only slightly. It's the desperate politics of a mind full with Soviet Russian imperialist nostalgia, not the work of a calculating, rational, long-term player.

 

After Yanukovich's ouster, Russia should have condemned him harshly for his corruption, offered magnanimous bailout deals with no strings attached, and in every way extended a helping hand, even directly to those who are rightfully condemned as fascists and (pseudo-) neo-nazis. That would have stopped that movement in their tracks. Ukraine would have realized there is no need to fear Russia or Russians, or to allow their country to be divided by petty sectarian politics, but no. Instead Putin came out only very vaguely against Yanukovich and offered him refuge, he retracted his bailout deals, he steeply increased the gas prices (which will directly affect many ordinary Ukrainians who will resent him for it), all the while drumming up crazy amounts of hate against Ukrainians in general and in particular a small group of Ukrainian right-wing extremists. I say, if it was the EU's plan to sow division between Ukrainians and Russians and alienate Russia to former Soviet countries with a Russian population, Putin has unknowingly perfectly played into their hands all along.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, the current government did overthrouw the pro-Russian government.

They simply do the same thing the EU and US do to Russia, 'sanctions'... you seriously think Moscow would reward the people who overthrew the pro-Russia government and instigated a pro-EU government?

That's pretty naieve.

 

Pretty much went the way I expect, Russia will no longer support Ukrain, and they will suffer for it. But you can't really blame Russia since the government that they dealt with was overthrown by pro-EU people, and they just have to see for themselves the EU can't offer them nearly the same Russia did.

Really seems like standard politics to me. They can complain about Russia, but the wind *will* turn if the pro-EU party makes life miserable, and if Russia then offers a helping hand, rather than doing so now, which will only show Moscow weak, and the Kiev rioteers victorious...

 

You can't really complain much about the hand feeding you stop doing that after you bite it hard.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/08/world/europe/ukraine-donetsk-protesters-walsh/index.html

 

So this is another surreptitious strategy by Russia and pro-Russian supporters in areas of eastern Ukraine to annex parts of Ukraine. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

In summary pro-Russian supporters have basically stormed and occupied Ukrainian government buildings in areas like Donetsk. At the same time we have tens of thousands of Russian troops massed on the eastern Ukrainian border. The Ukrainian government needs to remove these protesters but due to the volatile situation there will probably be loss of life as the pro-Russian supporters are removed

 

I can see the response from Putin now " Russian speaking Ukrainians have been killed, we need to protect them" and the Russian troops on the eastern border move in to "protect" Russian speaking Ukrainians and annex parts of eastern Ukraine. Despite the fact no government in this world would allow occupation of its government buildings by protesters for extended periods of time.

 

Interesting development to watch

[obyknven]

Moar about Donetsk, Vice news reporting

http://youtu.be/wetleAB1XmY

[Tagaziel]

He's ruined any hope of regaining personal trust among many Ukrainians, despite the historical closeness of the Russian and the Ukrainian people and the great potential for an alliance.

I enjoy your posts a great deal, Rostere, though I must point out that you should be careful with such claims. Geographical closeness does not translate to historical closeness and 20th century violence created a real right between Ukrainians and Russians (which is common for every country that was invaded and subjugated by the Soviet Union).

[Agiel]

 

3. Military

3a. Endurance - Raw numbers of military

3b. Striking power - carriers, long range aircraft and missiles (conventional)

3c Technology - any suggestions welcome, but suggest some sort of adjusted budgetary figure

 

As I feel Rostere has sections 1 and 2 pretty much covered, thought I'd go over number 3...

 

 

3a: The various independence and separatist movements of the collapse saw the population of Russia's domain reduced to half of what it was in Soviet times. As Russia has and still uses a conscript army, this has played havoc on its military strength. No longer do they have a vast population of able bodied men to fill the ranks and what's more demographic trends of Russia show this pool of potential conscripts is dwindling as the years go by. Adding to that, the vicious hazing in the Russian armed forces has not been conducive to fostering a strong esprit de corps among the conscripts. The situation has gotten so bad that many who are able seek exemptions, some of them legal but many times not. As a result, yearly conscription figures show that they fall well short of quotas (around 400,000 out of a possible 600,000 eligible men between the ages of 18-27 every year). Perhaps in an attempt to make obligatory military service a more attractive prospect, the Russian MoD has reduced the service period from two years in all services (save for the navy, which was three) to eighteen months, then to one year, hardly enough time for the average conscript to pick up valuable soldiering experience and skills.

 

 

Russia is more than acutely aware of the problem. Generals are begrudgingly putting more emphasis on the volunteer "contract soldiers" in "combat zones" such as the Caucasus and more technical roles (tank crews, helicopter pilots, SAM operators, etc) and increasingly relegating conscripts to auxiliary and/or non-combat roles (truck drivers, signals and communications personnel, airbase guards, and so forth). There is a growing interest in fostering a strong NCO corps modeled after those of the volunteer armies of the world, as many NCOs in the Soviet and Russian militaries were themselves conscripts and as a result the duties that some might expect to be carried out by sergeants and warrant officers were filled by junior commissioned officers instead. A story I have read told that in 1988, Marshall Sergey Akhromeyev visited several US Army bases including Fort Hood, the largest armour training school in the United States; he showed little interest in the brand spanking new M1A1s on display and was more impressed by the fact that there were sergeants with as much as twenty years of duty under their belt serving as tank commanders and trainers passing on their vast knowledge to trainee tank crews.

 

Then there's the number in equipment. A common point of criticism of the Soviet armed forces and its successors was that they did not have the same level of appreciation for equipment that did not throw a round downrange as the equipment that did. It is one thing to have a sizable fleet of very capable military aircraft like the Su-27 and the Su-34, but they don't reach their full potential as a complete weapons system without a complex support network that their potential adversaries might enjoy: AEW&C which provide command and control and operational situational awareness, tankers to insure they're spending more time in the air than on the tarmac, and the ground crews to increase readiness and reduce maintenance times. The United States alone has 32 E-3 Sentries in service and an additional 18 delegated to NATO unified command, to say nothing of those in service with the RAF and ALA and the fleet of E-2 Hawkeyes available to the US Navy which is nearly twice as large as the total E-2 production where the the RuAF has 13 A-50 Mainstays. The combined USAF and ANG fields more than 400 KC-135 refueling aircraft compared to the mere 23 Il-78 Midas of the RuAF. 

 

Believe it or not, the armoured corps of the Russian military is now at its most vulnerable than at any other time in its entire existence. As a result of severe cutbacks in the military and hoping the T-99 program bears fruit, they have begun retiring their fleet of T-80s, among their most capable main battle tanks, in favour of T-90s and T-72s. The reason for this is the fact that the gas turbine engine of the T-80 series is a logistical nightmare due to how much fuel it drinks, but it also doesn't help that the the factory responsible for modernising the line, Omsktransmash, recently went bust (some believe it to be due to the fact that the Uralvagonzavod Bureau has greater clout with military circles) and that the bureau that designed the T-80 is in Ukraine (they have since converted their T-80s into diesels). Before the retirement of the T-80, optimistic estimates put the number of the Russian Army's most modern tank, the T-90 (of which production has since ceased), at no more than 10% of the entire tank park (there are currently twice as many M1A2 Abrams in service with the United States Army as there are T-90s in service with the Russian army). Much of the burden of Russia's armoured operations will have to be borne by their T-72s, which while being different beasts from the ones used by Saddam Hussein, are not too far removed from what the Indians and the Syrians are using today and are heavily outclassed in firepower and protection by the Abrams, Leo 2s, Leclercs, and Challengers of the world.

 

A quote from Vasiliy Fofanov, a Russian armour expert, from 2007:

 

 

The today of Russian Armoured Forces, as well as that of the entire Russian Army, is dark. The financing that is allocated is not even enough to keep the existing equipment in good shape. There are definitely not enough funds to maintain a technological edge AND equip the forces with up-to-date military hardware.

 

Russian Armoured Forces have currently over 20,000 MBTs. However, relatively modern MBTs of the T-72B and T-80B models account for only about 15 percent of these, and even they are in urgent need of upgrades to incorporate modern weapon, protection and electronics systems. Deep upgrade proposals do exist but so far didn't reach the army units. Plans to upgrade about 200 MBTs a year keep being defered from one fiscal year to the next.

 

Acquisition of new military materiel is at a critically low level. T-80U MBTs are being phased out due to inability to maintain them properly and effective loss of T-80U production capabilities, and the force modernization needs are being fulfilled entirely by T-90 MBTs. These, despite 15 years of production, still account for just 1 percent of the force, and are trickling into the army at a rate of 1 battallion (31 tanks) in the recent years. This rate is expected to continue at least until 2010.

 

In short, the Russian armed forces at the moment are rather lacking in quality AND the quantity needed to offset these shortcomings.

 

Will tackle 3b and 3c in later posts.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Agiel

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

After Yanukovich's ouster, Russia should have condemned him harshly for his corruption, offered magnanimous bailout deals with no strings attached, and in every way extended a helping hand, even directly to those who are rightfully condemned as fascists and (pseudo-) neo-nazis. That would have stopped that movement in their tracks. Ukraine would have realized there is no need to fear Russia or Russians, or to allow their country to be divided by petty sectarian politics, but no. Instead Putin came out only very vaguely against Yanukovich and offered him refuge, he retracted his bailout deals, he steeply increased the gas prices (which will directly affect many ordinary Ukrainians who will resent him for it), all the while drumming up crazy amounts of hate against Ukrainians in general and in particular a small group of Ukrainian right-wing extremists. I say, if it was the EU's plan to sow division between Ukrainians and Russians and alienate Russia to former Soviet countries with a Russian population, Putin has unknowingly perfectly played into their hands all along.

 

 

Is this a joke? The opposition forces signed a deal with Yanukovich which the EU brokered and then broke it, literally 15 minutes later, the ink on the signatures didn't even have time to dry. Are those the sort of people one can trust? Of course, that all based on the wrong presumption that they're actually choosing anything themselves when all they do is take their orders from Washingon and EU. 

 

Naturally Russia isn't going to sit idly by an let Ukraine be removed from its sphere of influence, because even half of Ukraine is better than no Ukraine.

They're between a rock and a hard place. The revolution sets the stage for the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO which means that the missiles the US wants to place to threaten Russia can be placed close enough to render the Russian response system meaningless. Its like a prelude to a Cuban crisis.

So they had to do something drastic and they're doing it.

 

The EU/Washington is wholly to blame. When Yanukovich accepted Moscow's bailout deal they immediately organized a coup to bring him down. Washington doesn't accept the existence of Russian interests anywhere in eastern europe and does everything to push NATO ever more eastwards right up to Russia's borders. Europeans, in their infinite stupidity are playing along and antagonizing Russia for the sake of the US even though they themselves have no conflict with Russia, which isn't threatening them in any way.

In fact what Washington and London fear most of all is the possibility of a tight alliance between Germany and Russia, so this whole crisis has the added benefit of souring the relations between the two countries. A serious German-Russian business and political alliance would throw the continent right out of US dominion.

[Drowsy Emperor]

All the discussion regarding RF armed forces is armchair generalissimo nonsense with the nuclear armament that's in play.

 

It doesn't matter how good they are, it only matters how good they are relative to the other forces in the region. And apart from China, they could easily win a war with anyone else if it were really necessary. Except its not and there's not going to be a war because no-one wants 7000+ nuclear warheads aimed at them.

 

Besides, all that the US is doing is posturing. They're not really going to fight for Ukraine and everyone knows it. Why would they? Its just another piece of territory in the RF NATO struggle and not a critical one at that (for the US). 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Mor]

If by "great power" you mean "country with nuclear weapons", then yes, Russia is a great power. But it's a stupid definition because a lot of countries have then chosen not to be great powers, simply because they felt they didn't need to be one.

IMHO the definition in this case is based on national pride, many of them feel aggrieved by the "west" and see recent action by Putin as a tipping point in their former struggle and return to soviet "glory". Which is why you can see so many post trying to diminish any aspects of power in which Russia lack. (or why I find this argument completely pointless ego stroke, call Russia a great power or super power, who cares?! it doesn't change the facts of their life or our preconception of Russia's true source of brute "power")

 

I know it's not all super awesome amazing there for many people.  Newsflash, neither is the U.S. for a great many and growing number of people in it.

I have a Deja vu, in terms of quality of life Russia is quantitatively far bellow the US and EU. If you disagree feel free look it up.

 

Then again, roughly half of the Russian state budget comes from income due to sales of oil-related resources to the EU, so in the event of any escalation of conflict the Russian economy would be pummeled to rubble before the first shot was even fired. That is the downside if your country's long-term economic strategy is to be a big gas station. Comparing this and this we can see that Russia's exports sector is actually less diversified than that of the UAE. That's a very, very damning indictment of Russia's high-tech companies.

Good luck here, in my experience most Russians see their economy in terms of black and white with Boris yeltsin as the great destroyer, who sold out the country to "westren" interest and Oligarchs, the source of all evil crime corruption etc. While Putin being the great savior whose election magically brought change and fixed the economy.

 

It is pointless explaining that Soviet economy was in a decline for a long time (their excursion into Afghanistan only aggravated the problem), that drastic economic reforms take time to implement and always are painful in the short term, that actually that instability actually what strengthen Russia economy and the federal government in the long run, that late 90s reform already put the economy on track to its 7% growth, which Putin inherited. That Putin during his first term continued the same Market reform that Yeltsin started. The problem you mention started with his ~second term with rise of oil prices and influx of income, he stopped "wasting" money on optimizing the economy and started consolidating power by "browbeating" his opponents and nationalizing major enterprises. iirc by the end of his second term the economy growth was already on a decline and "his" "amazing" achievement of maintaining the same growth rate he inherited if going by other former soviet countries since 90s, wasn't that impressive, especially when you consider Russia potential and huge natural resource reserves.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

All the discussion regarding RF armed forces is armchair generalissimo nonsense with the nuclear armament that's in play.

 

It doesn't matter how good they are, it only matters how good they are relative to the other forces in the region. And apart from China, they could easily win a war with anyone else if it were really necessary. Except its not and there's not going to be a war because no-one wants 7000+ nuclear warheads aimed at them.

 

Besides, all that the US is doing is posturing. They're not really going to fight for Ukraine and everyone knows it. Why would they? Its just another piece of territory in the RF NATO struggle and not a critical one at that (for the US). 

 

Damn, I was hoping that since your regal return to the forums that you would  stay out of political discussions

 

There is a fellow Serb who is active in these political debates, Sarex. But he is an extremist, very jingoistic and very anti-western. He's not a bad person, he is just misinformed because he believes in conspiracy theories

 

And remember these debates are nothing personal, its just global politics

[213374U]

No, I would say that economic power is an even better indicator of total power today, because of a more fluid market in general. Economic power is more easily interchangeable for military power today than 100 years ago. As I've said, it's not very hard to build a nuke. In fact, much easier than building a proper safe nuclear power plant. It's true that nukes give you a lot of international power in some sense, but in other ways they hamper your progress as they undermine trust. Here's a list of countries who could reasonably build nuclear weapons but have obviously chosen not to: Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan and... well, I won't even bother to list them all, you get the point. You can conclude that you don't need to have nukes to be powerful (like Germany or Japan), you only need someone who is on your side with nuclear weapons. If by "great power" you mean "country with nuclear weapons", then yes, Russia is a great power. But it's a stupid definition because a lot of countries have then chosen not to be great powers, simply because they felt they didn't need to be one.

 

Because you are conflating peacetime and wartime economies. They are nothing alike. You can spend billions of oil dollars on advanced foreign weapons systems, and that only guarantees that you will have the prettiest military parades around. You can purchase some of the hardware, but you cannot buy a pool of experienced training officers, field experience, an integrated military and economic doctrine, effective inter-service coordination, etc. So a huge GDP is going to matter very little if all you do is buy expensive toys abroad and play the stock markets.

 

I'm also not accepting the leap you are making so lightly that it's "easy" to build a nuke → it's easy to build a credible strategic nuclear force, because it isn't. Delivery systems are as important as the warheads themselves, but ballistic missiles are only one part of the equation. Extensive testing is also required unless you are going with licensed designs—but nobody does that unless they are part of a major military alliance, which makes the point moot. Designing, building, storing and maintaining the readiness of different types of nuclear arms is not "easy" or cheap by any stretch of the imagination, requiring a whole industry dedicated to production and the fulfillfment very specific training needs.

 

The list of countries you list is simply not realistic; some of them such as Japan and Germany are legally bound to forsake nuclear weapons (Germany by the Two Plus Four Agreement, Japan by their post-war Constitution). Ukraine never developed nuclear weapons on their own, and seeing how they lack the ability to train submariners anymore, the suggestion that they can become a nuclear power is... interesting. South Korea is probably the only one in your list with the know-how and industrial potential to do it, but they have no reason to as that would escalate tensions with NK and they are on the long list of freeloaders off the American defense umbrella anyway. But by far the most insane of suggestions is Taiwan—an admission or proof that the ROC is close to completing a nuclear program would inevitably lead to war in the South China Sea, something that none of the major players in the area really want. Of course, this is also without getting into domestic dissent problems that may arise from pursuing nuclear ambitions.

 

In the words of Bruce Lee, "knowing is not enough, we must apply". Having the potential is one thing, tapping it is another entirely.

 

So, to sum up, becoming a major nuclear player requires not only a significant economic effort, but also a degree of international political independence unattainable by anyone... outside of great powers. This sacrifice of international influence is fine and dandy so long as one is a member of a major military alliance where one or more of the members are already nuclear-armed, and for as long as their interests and goals are aligned with those of the nuclear members. But this effectively means those countries are relegated from leading to following in critical matters, which is precisely the mark of a second rate power.

 

 

 

But no one is saying the USSR was not a great power then, they absolutely were. I'm saying Russia is not a great power now, for economic reasons you state yourself.

 

No, in 1964, the Soviet Union was a superpower, prepared to go toe-to-toe in a nuclear slugging match with the only other superpower to an uncertain outcome. This was with an economy that was already nominally several times smaller than that of the bloc they opposed. Gajillions of dollars on paper meant little back then, as they mean little today, when trying to gauge the importance of countries relative to one another. And this is also without accounting for the problem of increasing financialization of Western economies. You say that economic reasons GDP shows that Russia is no longer to be considered a great power—I say this approach paints an incomplete picture, provided concrete examples of this, and am explaining why making judgments based on that picture is foolhardy.

 

I'm also not too convinced of the usefulness of trying to determine whether one country or another presently meets an arbitrary set of criteria to be included in one arbitrary category or another, especially when those categories are inherited from the study of history, a discipline that is based on retrospect and whose goal is not at all to make assessments of the present or predictions for the future. I'm fairly certain that to Eastern Europe, the power of Russia is pretty great at the moment, and this perspective is probably shared by many in Western Europe too. So for the purposes of this discussion, does it really matter if a hundred years from now, historians will place 2014 Russia right up there with 1914 Britain, 1556 Spain, or 360 Sassanid Empire or not?

Edited April 10, 2014 by 213374U

[Sarex]

An interesting documentary that, amongst other things, deals with the modern world economy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=76m0s

 

I found the whole thing interesting but for the sake of being near the topic I have timestamped it to part 3.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Sarex

[Zoraptor]

That's a very fuzzy and too vague definition of what a great power is. And as I've said earlier, just because you try to block other people's efforts (which makes you look important) you are not automatically important. If France or Britain had been as obstinate as Russia, they could also have averted the Syria intervention. Just because the UK and France are allies of the US, they don't get to demonstrate their "power" as often. This is not to be interpreted as a weakness. In fact, the more friends you've got, the stronger you are.

Well, that is one of the fuzziest definitions of a Great Power I've ever seen. By that measure dear little New Zealand is a Great Power, we're friends with everyone. But no, it's a great POWER, not a 'great friend'. It's never ever been a niceness competition, furthest thing from it. Of course, those in the Great Power itself or in their sphere usually think that their term as such is Different and they've got to their position using sweet reason, kindness and generosity. May happen some time in the future, but it's never happened any time in the past or present.

 

US banks are on top of the food chain of international creditors.

 

 

Er, really? The same banks that almost to a man had to be bailed out massively or would have gone bankrupt en masse? All this actually does is illustrate exactly how fragile and recursive the west's economic 'might' really is- the US relies on banks for credit, the same banks that rely on the US for credit and free money to remain solvent. But I'm sure that ain't a house of cards- any more than Russia relying on the most crucial resource mankind currently has for most of her economy, at least.

[BruceVC]

Just because Russia has the power of vetoing UNSC decisions that does not make it powerful or a great nation, it just means there is a fundamental problem with how the UN operates. Look at the Syria crisis, this is a direct result of the power of the veto. And can people please stop suggesting that Russia "beat" the USA when they vetoed military action in Syria. There is a clause around the UNSC veto and voting system  that still allows military intervention in the interests of human rights that the USA could have used if they really wanted to intervene in Syria. But of course the succession around Assad is unclear now so why would the USA really want to get involved, there is no defined end goal to any intervention if you remove Assad

 

 

Now I want to be clear, I don't know if there is a better system than what we have got at the moment around the UNSC. I get frustrated at times with Russia and China but it goes both ways and the other members can veto military action by China or Russia that they want UN support for.

[Sarex]

http://www.channel4.com/news/russia-nato-ukraine-military-satellite-images-border?12

[Mor]

It goes farther than that, according to Swedish chief counter-intelligence Russia stepped up its intelligence gathering in the country. link

 

 

Today, anyone with enough nukes to turn the planet into one huge glass parking lot and the means to deliver them, has more influence than anyone who doesn't. That alone puts Russia in the big leagues, because any use of conventional force carries the risk of escalation. The whole diplomacy game changes when war is absolutely out of the question.

...

The bottom line is, when push comes to shove, GDP isn't going to be a good method to compare the relative weights of countries, by itself.

If war is absolutely out of the question, doesn't that makes economy into one of the greatest weapons of soft power in an attrition war, because it what allows you to maintain your edge by outdoing everything your competition does.

 

Because you are conflating peacetime and wartime economies. They are nothing alike. You can spend billions of oil dollars on advanced foreign weapons systems, and that only guarantees that you will have the prettiest military parades around. You can purchase some of the hardware, but you cannot buy a pool of experienced training officers, field experience, an integrated military and economic doctrine, effective inter-service coordination, etc. So a huge GDP is going to matter very little if all you do is buy expensive toys abroad and play the stock markets.

huh? I think you missed his point, which followed on the foot steps of this post(underlining a very basic concept). Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about, this is not an either or scenario military spending both acquisition and training are usually measured as percentage of GDP, thus bigger GDP more military spending e.g. since energy prices skyrocket Russian income, they was able to upgrade their both poorly equipped and trained army.

 

 

An interesting documentary that, amongst other things, deals with the modern world economy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=76m0s

 

I found the whole thing interesting but for the sake of being near the topic I have timestamped it to part 3.

You confuse interesting with yet more conspiracy theories, but for the sake of the argument, care to explain to me in what way Russia banking system is different from that in the EU, so that any of that doesn't apply to it?

 

 

All this actually does is illustrate exactly how fragile and recursive the west's economic 'might' really is- the US relies on banks for credit, the same banks that rely on the US for credit and free money to remain solvent. But I'm sure that ain't a house of cards- any more than Russia relying on the most crucial resource mankind currently has for most of her economy, at least.

Either you suggesting that Russia is more stable than that of US or lashing out against this section of the previous post, comparing Russia to the UAE:

 

 

Then again, roughly half of the Russian state budget comes from income due to sales of oil-related resources to the EU, so in the event of any escalation of conflict the Russian economy would be pummeled to rubble before the first shot was even fired. That is the downside if your country's long-term economic strategy is to be a big gas station. Comparing this and this we can see that Russia's exports sector is actually less diversified than that of the UAE. That's a very, very damning indictment of Russia's high-tech companies.

 

You might want to check Medvedev economic agenda and overall Russia economic policy in regard to its dependency on energy sector and prediction for its economy, which basically support what we said many times before.

[obyknven]

Odessa today.

http://youtu.be/U6YIqLcwSHA

[BruceVC]

http://www.channel4.com/news/russia-nato-ukraine-military-satellite-images-border?12

 

This link is bizarre, what is it really telling us?

 

Here are the relevant question, is Russia massing troops on the Ukrainian border? Yes

 

Would this make Ukrainian understandably nervous? Yes

 

Why is Russia massing troops on the Ukrainian border? Maybe you Russian apologists can explain that one

 

Then the article blatantly mentions how Ukrainian government buildings have been seized by protesters, as if this is normal and the fact that the Ukrainian government isn't going to accept this makes them belligerent.

 

No this article isn't  slanted towards a pro-Russian perspective at all   

[Walsingham]

http://www.channel4.com/news/russia-nato-ukraine-military-satellite-images-border?12

 

Let me get this straight. Russia masses troops on the border ...and accuses NATO of ramping up pressure?

 

I'd laugh but I'm not sure when I'd stop.