4 ms·

Using GDP to measure Russian significance is like trying to measure American significance by counting the number of hotdogs consumed - it doesn't matter. Result

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 :)
- nix23 6y ago
  >The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter Well that's some Marketing blabla, same as that Generation blabla..AND Russia says that the Su-57 is 5th Gen ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter#Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter#R... Oh and the US is not sure if the F35 is really a 5th gen jet (because lack of supercruise) but the F-22 is one.
mlyle 6y ago
Russia's military capabilities are slowly atrophying because the GDP isn't enough to support the footprint. The economy creaks over the massive expenditure, while maintenance is deferred, readiness decreases, and programs and training are halfassed. Economic capability is fundamental to your ability to field and maintain a military.
greedo 6y ago
Nonsense. Russia can project its military in adjacent regions, for limited times. It has no blue water navy, its air force is at least one generation behind. Its army has crappy logistics (meaning staying power). The only areas where it competes at all is in missiles, and even that area is debatable. Its vaunted S-300 and S-400 air defence systems are routinely ignored by the Israelis during airstrikes, as are its shorter range systems. It has no budget to invest in R&D, and when it comes up with even a remotely interesting system, can only try to buy a few units. The F-35 is superior to any Russian aircraft flying, including the SU-57. The F-22, a 30 year old design, is still far better than anything the Russians have, or will have in squadron numbers before 2030. The Armada vehicle line is still a joke, and will probably never be produced in numbers due to budget constraints.

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 :)

nix23 6y ago
>The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter Well that's some Marketing blabla, same as that Generation blabla..AND Russia says that the Su-57 is 5th Gen ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter#Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter#R... Oh and the US is not sure if the F35 is really a 5th gen jet (because lack of supercruise) but the F-22 is one.

mlyle 6y ago

Russia's military capabilities are slowly atrophying because the GDP isn't enough to support the footprint. The economy creaks over the massive expenditure, while maintenance is deferred, readiness decreases, and programs and training are halfassed. Economic capability is fundamental to your ability to field and maintain a military.

greedo 6y ago

Nonsense. Russia can project its military in adjacent regions, for limited times. It has no blue water navy, its air force is at least one generation behind. Its army has crappy logistics (meaning staying power). The only areas where it competes at all is in missiles, and even that area is debatable. Its vaunted S-300 and S-400 air defence systems are routinely ignored by the Israelis during airstrikes, as are its shorter range systems. It has no budget to invest in R&D, and when it comes up with even a remotely interesting system, can only try to buy a few units. The F-35 is superior to any Russian aircraft flying, including the SU-57. The F-22, a 30 year old design, is still far better than anything the Russians have, or will have in squadron numbers before 2030. The Armada vehicle line is still a joke, and will probably never be produced in numbers due to budget constraints.