3 ms·

My (probably poorly informed) take is that they're compensating for a weak economy by basically waging asymmetric/guerrilla warfare. Using minimal cost techniqu

My (probably poorly informed) take is that they're compensating for a weak economy by basically waging asymmetric/guerrilla warfare. Using minimal cost techniques to sow the most chaos possible. They may not be able to be strong, but they can make others weaker.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
They spend a large % of GDP on military, while their neighbour easily outspends them because of a way bigger economy. After all, Russia's GDP is similar to only 3 European countries ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands together is bigger, you can check it in Wolfram Alpha ). They should just spend it on trade instead. So their population would get wealthier. Edit: over estimated Russia's GDP. It's even smaller then France alone. Also Germany and Italy are easily bigger
- koalaman 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Last time I checked Russia had a smaller GDP than Italy. Hell of a geopolitical presence for such a small economy.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    You're correct. I could have just mentioned Germany/France/Italy being bigger by themselves than Russia. It's even less then I expected. Weird. Perhaps Wolfram Alpha had different numbers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edit: checked. No it isn't, perhaps I was checking military expenditure then since that was what I was comparing a while ago. Conclusion that I had was that Europe is outspending Russia easily in military.
- igammarays 6y ago
  Using GDP to measure Russian significance is like trying to measure American significance by counting the number of hotdogs consumed - it doesn't matter. Results are what matters. For the amount that Russia spends on its military, it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period. Meanwhile the the New York Times described the F-35 as "America's Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program". Trillions spent on a jet with questionable fighting capabilities. American military leaders themselves don't trust the plane.
  - pilsetnieks 6y ago
    > it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period Is it, though? NATO has 18 aircraft carriers, of those 12 are American, 2 of them are British, and two are Italian. Russia has 1 that is sitting in dry dock for servicing since 2017 and was even further damaged when the dry dock sank[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov#Refit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admir...
    - nix23 6y ago
      >NATO has 18 aircraft carriers That's because Russia never had interest in aircraft carriers, it's just not their military motto, you need Carrier's to attack a Country outside of your reach, witch Russia knew would never be successfully happen against NATO-States, that's why even in the Cold war Russia was always focused on defense.
      - pilsetnieks 6y ago
        Yea, that doesn't count as global force projection then, which was the argument a few comments upthread.
        nix23 6y ago
        You know how big Russia still is? It would even count 'global' if they just stay inside the borders ;)
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Russia's army is small compared with it's glory days during the USSR and we all know what happened then. In these days, Europe easily outspends Russia and it's army IS bigger. The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter :) Besides that, Russias naval fleet is stuck behind Ukraine. I don't think they like that :)
    - 6y ago

NicoJuicy 6y ago

They spend a large % of GDP on military, while their neighbour easily outspends them because of a way bigger economy. After all, Russia's GDP is similar to only 3 European countries ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands together is bigger, you can check it in Wolfram Alpha ). They should just spend it on trade instead. So their population would get wealthier. Edit: over estimated Russia's GDP. It's even smaller then France alone. Also Germany and Italy are easily bigger

koalaman 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Last time I checked Russia had a smaller GDP than Italy. Hell of a geopolitical presence for such a small economy.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  You're correct. I could have just mentioned Germany/France/Italy being bigger by themselves than Russia. It's even less then I expected. Weird. Perhaps Wolfram Alpha had different numbers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edit: checked. No it isn't, perhaps I was checking military expenditure then since that was what I was comparing a while ago. Conclusion that I had was that Europe is outspending Russia easily in military.
igammarays 6y ago
Using GDP to measure Russian significance is like trying to measure American significance by counting the number of hotdogs consumed - it doesn't matter. Results are what matters. For the amount that Russia spends on its military, it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period. Meanwhile the the New York Times described the F-35 as "America's Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program". Trillions spent on a jet with questionable fighting capabilities. American military leaders themselves don't trust the plane.
- pilsetnieks 6y ago
  > it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period Is it, though? NATO has 18 aircraft carriers, of those 12 are American, 2 of them are British, and two are Italian. Russia has 1 that is sitting in dry dock for servicing since 2017 and was even further damaged when the dry dock sank[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov#Refit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admir...
  - nix23 6y ago
    >NATO has 18 aircraft carriers That's because Russia never had interest in aircraft carriers, it's just not their military motto, you need Carrier's to attack a Country outside of your reach, witch Russia knew would never be successfully happen against NATO-States, that's why even in the Cold war Russia was always focused on defense.
    - pilsetnieks 6y ago
      Yea, that doesn't count as global force projection then, which was the argument a few comments upthread.
      - nix23 6y ago
        You know how big Russia still is? It would even count 'global' if they just stay inside the borders ;)
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Russia's army is small compared with it's glory days during the USSR and we all know what happened then. In these days, Europe easily outspends Russia and it's army IS bigger. The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter :) Besides that, Russias naval fleet is stuck behind Ukraine. I don't think they like that :)
  - 6y ago