4 ms·

An important point in understanding Russia: Russia is not a superpower; it's a new situation, not the cold war. They are a sinking regional power with nuclear w

An important point in understanding Russia: Russia is not a superpower; it's a new situation, not the cold war. They are a sinking regional power with nuclear weapons, trying to find a cost-effective way to have some influence. In the cold war, the Soviet Union was far larger than Russia today: It included Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states, Armenia and many others. And the states it dominated (part of the the Warsaw Pact) were much of Eastern and Central Europe, including half of Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, and more. Russia no longer controls those countries and many of the largest ones changed sides to NATO, greatly shifting the balance of power. Power flows from money and population: --- GDP/population 1977 (best I could find in a quick search):[0] * Warsaw Pact: $1.2 trillion / 366 million * NATO: $3.4 trillion / 563 million (I think that includes France, which was allied but not part of NATO). --- ~2016 [1] * Russia: $1.1 trillion / 144 million (and shrinking, afaik) * NATO (2014): $37.5 trillion / 906 million (and growing) * Spain: $1.7 trillion / 46 million * Germany: $3.8 trillion / 82 million * Canada: $1.4 trillion / 36 million * U.S.: $18.5 trillion / 325 million --- Russia cannot compete with NATO. Their economy is significantly smaller than Spain's and than Canada's - those nations could afford more powerful militaries than Russia's if they chose. [0] (PDF) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/77doc579.pdf http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/77... [1] Wikipedia

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
The size of Russia's military (especially the number of nuclear weapons) says that Russia is considerably more than a regional power. Sinking (that is, declining in influence/power)? I can go with that. Others (Canada/Spain) could have larger militaries than Russia if they choose? Great, but they don't choose to do that. Russia does. When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter. Agreed. However, NATO, and the U.S. in particular, still outspend Russia by a very wide margin. > The size of Russia's military From what I've read, they lack the capability or money to deploy more than small forces beyond their borders. Russia is poor, has serious economic problems, and wars are very expensive. Iraq cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars, IIRC. Everything they do is on the cheap, designed to maximize the appearance of strength: In Syria Russia sticks to the air, and we don't know how many missions (or at least I don't), how much it costs or for how long they can afford it. In Ukraine they used small amounts of special forces to seize Ukraine's southern peninsula, Crimea, and support insurgents mostly with equipment. They hide deaths of the any Russian troops in Ukraine, indicating that there may not be much public support for foreign deployments. > especially the number of nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons make a strong impression but are status symbols; in practice, they are almost unusable. They do prevent the invasion of Russia, but nobody was going to do that anyway except, as a long shot, China in the far east. Probably they do make the U.S. and Russian forces in Syria keep a distance from each other, to avoid unintentional conflict. Otherwise, they provide no influence; nobody worries that Russia will nuke them.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > In Syria Russia sticks to the air, FWIW, it's not entirely correct. There are specs ops and advisor teams on the ground (and there have already been officially reported casualties). But beyond that, some people who previously fought for the separatist militias in Ukraine told me that quite a few of their militia friends have been unofficially "contracted" to Syria. This appears a convenient arrangement, since when they get killed, it doesn't get reported as a military casualty, and doesn't really need to be reported at all. Similar to the use of contractors by US in Iraq, I guess - but these guys are actually used at the frontline to support Assad troops in direct engagements, not just to provide security for civilians etc. BTW, ironically, they have a very low opinion of the local troops. One guy over there joked that the war is essentially fought by foreign troops against each other on either side (Assad and ISIS), whereas local recruits on either side are really unmotivated to fight, and are easily routed or forced to surrender. The only locals he considered to be a viable, motivated fighting force capable of winning without foreign manpower backing them are the Kurds. (This is unverified Internet rumors, I don't know those people personally, you don't know me personally, so take it all with a grain of salt.)
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I've read in several credible sources report that former anti-Russian insurgents from the Caucuses (e.g., Chechnya) are also in Syria, and rumors say Russia facilitated that.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        This is likely a conflation of two different facts. On one hand, the Syrian branch of what later became ISIS has a lot of Chechen fighters, mostly associated with Doku Umarov and his "Caucasus Emirate"; indeed, one of the groups that united to become ISIS was founded by a group of Chechen separatist commanders. The aforementioned contractors pegged them as the best fighting force that ISIS currently possesses, due to both high morale and experience. On the other hand, Russia has been kinda sorta reviving the "savage division" traditions of the Empire, specifically with Chechnya as a source of recruits. They were used in Ukraine (ironically, sometimes fighting against Chechen separatists who came to join the Ukrainian National Guard volunteer battalions), and now also in Syria. But they're usually not former anti-Russian insurgents from the most recent war (the one that started in 1999). Many of them were separatists in the first war (1994-96), but switched sides in the second war, like the current Chechen leader Kadyrov.
- int_19h 10y ago
  >> The size of Russia's military (especially the number of nuclear weapons) says that Russia is considerably more than a regional power. It is a regional power because it doesn't have means to project power beyond its region. Even the operation in Syria is stretching the supply lines significantly. Compare this to US with its several carrier strike groups. The only weapon that Russia has that has truly global reach, comparable to those CSG, is its nukes, which aren't actually usable in any scenario other than an all-out nuclear exchange. Which is why "regional power with nukes" is so accurate.
woodandsteel 10y ago
The problem is that Putin, as he has stated clearly, has made it his goal to get back to superpower status. He doesn't have the population and economy to do it, so he has to use dirty tricks. And even if he fails, he sure can cause a lot of problems in the attempt.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

The size of Russia's military (especially the number of nuclear weapons) says that Russia is considerably more than a regional power. Sinking (that is, declining in influence/power)? I can go with that. Others (Canada/Spain) could have larger militaries than Russia if they choose? Great, but they don't choose to do that. Russia does. When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter.

hackuser 10y ago
> When the shooting starts, how much you could have spent on our military doesn't matter. Agreed. However, NATO, and the U.S. in particular, still outspend Russia by a very wide margin. > The size of Russia's military From what I've read, they lack the capability or money to deploy more than small forces beyond their borders. Russia is poor, has serious economic problems, and wars are very expensive. Iraq cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars, IIRC. Everything they do is on the cheap, designed to maximize the appearance of strength: In Syria Russia sticks to the air, and we don't know how many missions (or at least I don't), how much it costs or for how long they can afford it. In Ukraine they used small amounts of special forces to seize Ukraine's southern peninsula, Crimea, and support insurgents mostly with equipment. They hide deaths of the any Russian troops in Ukraine, indicating that there may not be much public support for foreign deployments. > especially the number of nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons make a strong impression but are status symbols; in practice, they are almost unusable. They do prevent the invasion of Russia, but nobody was going to do that anyway except, as a long shot, China in the far east. Probably they do make the U.S. and Russian forces in Syria keep a distance from each other, to avoid unintentional conflict. Otherwise, they provide no influence; nobody worries that Russia will nuke them.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > In Syria Russia sticks to the air, FWIW, it's not entirely correct. There are specs ops and advisor teams on the ground (and there have already been officially reported casualties). But beyond that, some people who previously fought for the separatist militias in Ukraine told me that quite a few of their militia friends have been unofficially "contracted" to Syria. This appears a convenient arrangement, since when they get killed, it doesn't get reported as a military casualty, and doesn't really need to be reported at all. Similar to the use of contractors by US in Iraq, I guess - but these guys are actually used at the frontline to support Assad troops in direct engagements, not just to provide security for civilians etc. BTW, ironically, they have a very low opinion of the local troops. One guy over there joked that the war is essentially fought by foreign troops against each other on either side (Assad and ISIS), whereas local recruits on either side are really unmotivated to fight, and are easily routed or forced to surrender. The only locals he considered to be a viable, motivated fighting force capable of winning without foreign manpower backing them are the Kurds. (This is unverified Internet rumors, I don't know those people personally, you don't know me personally, so take it all with a grain of salt.)
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I've read in several credible sources report that former anti-Russian insurgents from the Caucuses (e.g., Chechnya) are also in Syria, and rumors say Russia facilitated that.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      This is likely a conflation of two different facts. On one hand, the Syrian branch of what later became ISIS has a lot of Chechen fighters, mostly associated with Doku Umarov and his "Caucasus Emirate"; indeed, one of the groups that united to become ISIS was founded by a group of Chechen separatist commanders. The aforementioned contractors pegged them as the best fighting force that ISIS currently possesses, due to both high morale and experience. On the other hand, Russia has been kinda sorta reviving the "savage division" traditions of the Empire, specifically with Chechnya as a source of recruits. They were used in Ukraine (ironically, sometimes fighting against Chechen separatists who came to join the Ukrainian National Guard volunteer battalions), and now also in Syria. But they're usually not former anti-Russian insurgents from the most recent war (the one that started in 1999). Many of them were separatists in the first war (1994-96), but switched sides in the second war, like the current Chechen leader Kadyrov.
int_19h 10y ago
>> The size of Russia's military (especially the number of nuclear weapons) says that Russia is considerably more than a regional power. It is a regional power because it doesn't have means to project power beyond its region. Even the operation in Syria is stretching the supply lines significantly. Compare this to US with its several carrier strike groups. The only weapon that Russia has that has truly global reach, comparable to those CSG, is its nukes, which aren't actually usable in any scenario other than an all-out nuclear exchange. Which is why "regional power with nukes" is so accurate.

woodandsteel 10y ago

The problem is that Putin, as he has stated clearly, has made it his goal to get back to superpower status. He doesn't have the population and economy to do it, so he has to use dirty tricks. And even if he fails, he sure can cause a lot of problems in the attempt.