Russia displays military might

Finn McCool said:

What does that even mean? I've made my points and you just reply with sarcasm and no substance so until you can make some actual points I'm just going to ignore you from this point on.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's best you ignore this thread all together, pal, because I really can't bare to read your posts.

Let us all know when those "better emperors" of Rome has fixed the problems of the empire and revived Rome from its humiliating dispatch.

Don't hold your breath

daveman said:

Let us all know when those "better emperors" of Rome has fixed the problems of the empire and revived Rome from its humiliating dispatch.

Don't hold your breath

Click to expand...

You really don't understand the history of the late Roman Empire. It went through a slow decline, battered by successive waves of barbarian invasion towards the end, through crisis and damage control until it could no longer sustain itself. Everytime there was a crisis (the battle of Adrianolple for example) the empire was able to take evasive action (giving into the Visigoths demands and paying them off) to more or less maintain the status quo for a while longer. These were not long term solutions to the problems they faced however, and that is what led to the fall of the Western Empire. The somewhat the same thing happened in the East, except the Eastern Empire had a stronger economic base and state institution than the West and thus was able to make more robust responses to the threats facing it. That is why the Eastern Empire survived and even expanded under Justinian. Indeed the Byzantine Empire remained a powerful force hundreds of years after the fall of the West. This pertains to our original argument because you seem to believe that the US is headed for a cataclysmic, sudden collapse. If anything it is headed into more of a Roman pattern where the above described circumstances cause gradual decline. You can already see it happening; our political culture cannot tackle long term issues. However what I mean to say is that like the Roman Empire the American state is strong enough to at least soften and slow the decline.

Ultimately this is academic because the Roman model does not entirely pertain to the US. The United States is currently experiencing an economic crisis that is painful, but it is fully capable of weathering it. Simaltaneously we are embroiled in two foreign conflicts. Lastly due to the international order of peace between great powers and free trade that the US is the principal architect of, the other major powers in the world are experiencing major economic booms and filling in the areas on the globe and in the global economy where US power is comparatively weak.

It should be seen as a sign of US strength that we are able to fight two wars and at least hold them at stalemate while experiencing an economic recession. As all Empires with strong military-government-economic institutions do (look at the Eastern Roman Empire), the US will be able to absorb the consequences of this current trifecta of bad circumstances. However when all is said and done we will no longer be a "hyperpower" because the rest of the world has risen.

Yes, you're right, the Roman Empire no longer exists (good job on that one). However the point that I am making is that Empires can weather economic and military problems. All Empires eventually fall, but the Eastern Empire's survival in the 4th century shows how empires with a strong economic-miliary base can make it through those problems.

Finn McCool said:

You really don't understand the history of the late Roman Empire. It went through a slow decline, battered by successive waves of barbarian invasion towards the end, through crisis and damage control until it could no longer sustain itself.

Click to expand...

On a macro scale you might see all these changes as a slow stagnation rather than something cataclysmic, but for people living there at that time, any of the significant events like the sacking of Rome would be cataclysmic.

So going back to the example of the US, even if it's true that a decline might take the greater part of a century, that doesn't mean individual events lasting maybe 2-3 years would be perceived as being disastrous.

In general, I agree on the point that Russia will stay at least a major or even great power.

This has the following reasons:

-Russias has natural ressources, and a lot of industry backed up by a highly educated population base. If they manage to increase their birth rate, they should be (very)fine.
-Russia has relativly few significant "mortal foes". Several states have "Death to the USA" as the more or less official state slogan, and, while the Baltic states and Poland arent exactly Russophile, the animosity Russia faces is not as big as the one faced by a certain other power.
-Russia is not as overstretched as America is. In fact, I would say it is understretched as the current extent of Russia does not encompass areas that were Russian for a very long time.

In the long run, Russia may fall behind China. It will propably also be weaker than a unified European Union (depending on how exatly the EU unifies and how both entities solve their birth rate problems), But it will definitly stay one of the worlds strongest powers.

The future interaction between Russia and China will be very interesting to watch, especially the future scope of Chinese Immigration into Russia.

I dont think a war between this two power is feasable. Even if one of them would defeat the other side, the winner would be faced by the mother of all guerillia wars, since suppressing a population that is backed by a major power will be incredibly difficult.
If Russia gets aggressive, it will be in the west were it could aquire territory that is ethnically Russian and thus much easier to control.
China on the other hand has a fair amount of neighbours that dont sport nukes backed up by significant armies, so if the Dragon will become aggressive they will go somewhere else too.

Russian economic and demographic trends look a lot worse than anything the US has ever faced in it's admittedly short history. It's population is below that of Bangladesh and continues to fall. It's birth rate is well below replacement, and it is worse for ethnic Russians than for other groups in the Federation. The only growth population in Federation are Muslims, and this does not bode well for internal stability. The male life span for ethnic Russians is only 58 years, fully a decade less than Soviet times.
Economically, Russia is on a par with Spain at $1.6 trillion USD nominal GDP. In terms of per-capita GDP, Russia is number 52 ( lets be fair, the US is number 15 and the oft maligned France is number 16, with Luxembourg as top dog ) with a nominal per-capita GDP of $11.8K, right behind Barbados at $13.4K ( now there's a world power ! ). Spain by comparison has a per-capita GDP of $35.3K. Russia does not have the economic might to sustain itself as a nuclear power for long. It will continue to claim a nuclear arsenal, but as time passes at Russia's low level of economic output ( and budgetary authority ) the effectiveness of that nuclear arsenal will decline, as will the quality of the rest of it's fighting forces.
Russia doesn't have a consumer manufacturing sector to speak of. Tell us what products you buy from Russia? Cars? A Lada? Don't make me laugh. They aren't a player in any significant consumer market. All they have to offer are natural resources. This is a two edged sword. Take Mexico as an example, also Iran and Venezuela. Extractive industries like oil and natural gas require continuous investment of very large amounts of money to find and develop new fields. But, governments with resource based economies do not have other sources of revenue so they rely on resource revenue to fund the government. Mexico obtains only 9% of it's revenue from taxes, the rest comes from Pemex. It is much the same for any resource dependent nation. By taking revenues from oil and gas these nations typically end up starving their main revenue generator for investment funds, causing a decline in output. This is happening in Iran and Mexico now. Plus, these governments ride a boom and bust cycle that makes it impossible to maintain stable funding for important government programs.
Russia will have to greatly diversify it's economy away from it's reliance on resources and greatly increase it's GDP from these new industries before I will quake in my boots over the perceived "Russian threat". Just my two cents.

Ambivalent said:

Russian economic and demographic trends look a lot worse than anything the US has ever faced in it's admittedly short history. It's population is below that of Bangladesh and continues to fall. It's birth rate is well below replacement, and it is worse for ethnic Russians than for other groups in the Federation. The only growth population in Federation are Muslims, and this does not bode well for internal stability. The male life span for ethnic Russians is only 58 years, fully a decade less than Soviet times.
Economically, Russia is on a par with Spain at $1.6 trillion USD nominal GDP. In terms of per-capita GDP, Russia is number 52 ( lets be fair, the US is number 15 and the oft maligned France is number 16, with Luxembourg as top dog ) with a nominal per-capita GDP of $11.8K, right behind Barbados at $13.4K ( now there's a world power ! ). Spain by comparison has a per-capita GDP of $35.3K. Russia does not have the economic might to sustain itself as a nuclear power for long. It will continue to claim a nuclear arsenal, but as time passes at Russia's low level of economic output ( and budgetary authority ) the effectiveness of that nuclear arsenal will decline, as will the quality of the rest of it's fighting forces.
Russia doesn't have a consumer manufacturing sector to speak of. Tell us what products you buy from Russia? Cars? A Lada? Don't make me laugh. They aren't a player in any significant consumer market. All they have to offer are natural resources. This is a two edged sword. Take Mexico as an example, also Iran and Venezuela. Extractive industries like oil and natural gas require continuous investment of very large amounts of money to find and develop new fields. But, governments with resource based economies do not have other sources of revenue so they rely on resource revenue to fund the government. Mexico obtains only 9% of it's revenue from taxes, the rest comes from Pemex. It is much the same for any resource dependent nation. By taking revenues from oil and gas these nations typically end up starving their main revenue generator for investment funds, causing a decline in output. This is happening in Iran and Mexico now. Plus, these governments ride a boom and bust cycle that makes it impossible to maintain stable funding for important government programs.
Russia will have to greatly diversify it's economy away from it's reliance on resources and greatly increase it's GDP from these new industries before I will quake in my boots over the perceived "Russian threat". Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Here are my two cents. Russia has superior skilled labor and know-how than nations like Bangladesh, Mexico, Iran, Venezuela. Russia also has a much more capable military than any of these nations. Russia's power projection has been greatly limited, but Russia is on the same continent or land as Europe and many other nations. Russia will never be a superpower like the USSR (thank God for the end of colonialism and communism, real communism, not fake communism), but Russia will still be a world power. Comparing Russia to Spain is ridiculous. Russia has a lot more influence than Spain. Russia still has a lot more nukes and arguably a superior conventional military. Russia still has much more economic influence. The EU sure has to pay attention to whether or not Russia is going to supply them with gas and oil. Russia still has more political heft in international relations. Russia is a lot more corrupt than Spain, but this is one feature Russia doesn't need. Russia has a growing Muslim population, but the same can be said about Europe. If Russia and other nations can persuade Muslims, Jews, and Christians to only follow a moderate interpretation, then the world would be a lot less screwed up.

Russia has an aging population, but so does Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, blah blah blah. America's population is balanced, but a lot of this has to do with legal and illegal immigration from the border America shares with Mexico, but nonstop immigration is nowhere near the best solution to deal with aging. It has its pros and cons, which is now more evident than ever with the international economic downturn. Nonchalant population growth may be bad idea for the future. A balance of quality and quantity in population seems to be the path towards living quality.

Most importantly, Russia seems to have clearly learned to stay away from communism. I have never been to Russia, but from what I have seen in pictures and testimonies, today's Russia is a lot more livable than yesterday's Russia. Russia does not need to be America's enemy.

America's greatness partly depends on international trade and a stable world order. If Russia destabilizes, then this could cause major economic, nuclear, and political problems throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, which will spread to other regions such as America. You may be rooting for the fall of Russia, and foolishly think it is patriot, but I'm not. I think it is obvious America should stay away from national breakdowns like what is occurring in the wars in the Middle East, but then there are people like Bush, Wolfowitz (sp?), Pelosi, Obama, and so on who think things are swell in the wars in the Middle East. However, these people make a career off of these crises, but the American people and other people sure aren't benefiting.

I predict Russia will be a world power for the next ten years. It won't rise into a superpower or dissolve into a minor nation (i.e., Bangladesh).

Ambivalent said:

Russian economic and demographic trends look a lot worse than anything the US has ever faced in it's admittedly short history. It's population is below that of Bangladesh and continues to fall. It's birth rate is well below replacement, and it is worse for ethnic Russians than for other groups in the Federation. The only growth population in Federation are Muslims, and this does not bode well for internal stability. The male life span for ethnic Russians is only 58 years, fully a decade less than Soviet times.
Economically, Russia is on a par with Spain at $1.6 trillion USD nominal GDP. In terms of per-capita GDP, Russia is number 52 ( lets be fair, the US is number 15 and the oft maligned France is number 16, with Luxembourg as top dog ) with a nominal per-capita GDP of $11.8K, right behind Barbados at $13.4K ( now there's a world power ! ). Spain by comparison has a per-capita GDP of $35.3K. Russia does not have the economic might to sustain itself as a nuclear power for long. It will continue to claim a nuclear arsenal, but as time passes at Russia's low level of economic output ( and budgetary authority ) the effectiveness of that nuclear arsenal will decline, as will the quality of the rest of it's fighting forces.
Russia doesn't have a consumer manufacturing sector to speak of. Tell us what products you buy from Russia? Cars? A Lada? Don't make me laugh. They aren't a player in any significant consumer market. All they have to offer are natural resources. This is a two edged sword. Take Mexico as an example, also Iran and Venezuela. Extractive industries like oil and natural gas require continuous investment of very large amounts of money to find and develop new fields. But, governments with resource based economies do not have other sources of revenue so they rely on resource revenue to fund the government. Mexico obtains only 9% of it's revenue from taxes, the rest comes from Pemex. It is much the same for any resource dependent nation. By taking revenues from oil and gas these nations typically end up starving their main revenue generator for investment funds, causing a decline in output. This is happening in Iran and Mexico now. Plus, these governments ride a boom and bust cycle that makes it impossible to maintain stable funding for important government programs.
Russia will have to greatly diversify it's economy away from it's reliance on resources and greatly increase it's GDP from these new industries before I will quake in my boots over the perceived "Russian threat". Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the fact that Spain (or Switzerland) have the same GDP as Russia shows that the GDP doesnt give a lot of meaningfull information on the industrial capacitys of a country.
Russia exports 15 billion of manufactured goods to the EU per year, (more on EU Russian trade here) while its not a lot compared to their oil and gas exports, it is still not unsignificant.
In fact, Russias trade bilance with the EU looks a lot like a bigger version of Norways, and Norways industries are very competetive in their own specialisations.
I venture to say that if Germany would suddenly get a giant (well, to make Germany a net Oil exporter it would have to be really friggin big) Oil field, there trade bilance would also change into something looking suspiciously like the Russian one.
Trading:
Russia


Norway:


My point is: That the Russian bilance is hugely based on Oil and Gas has something to do with them having more oil and gas than they can consume internally, it is not neccesarly an indicator of a poor industrial performance. Countries which have oil and, given their size, competetive industries have a bilance which looks a lot like the Russian one too.