montgomery
New Member
Hi
Moscow is a hard one for me to crack. On one hand Russia is a failed state with a collapsing population and Moscow is gradually taking away democratic advances made in the past 20 years. On the other hand it possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and will become more relevant to world affairs the more powerful Beijing becomes.
I suppose it is a superpower as far as brute force goes, but not in terms of diplomatic force or capacity to project power.
Moscow is a hard one for me to crack. On one hand Russia is a failed state with a collapsing population and Moscow is gradually taking away democratic advances made in the past 20 years. On the other hand it possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and will become more relevant to world affairs the more powerful Beijing becomes.
I suppose it is a superpower as far as brute force goes, but not in terms of diplomatic force or capacity to project power.
stewartash
New Member
Russia is still a major player - no question. The Americans (the West) like to play down and twist politically! Sure - Russia going the same way as the Brits but Russia has been replaced as the 'old boogie man', case of in with the new and out with the old so sided lined.:gun
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
hi thanks for your view, i still think that they still have some diplomatic power when it comes to its allies or anti west countries, mainly through its arms contracts with countries and not so much on old soviet ties.
montgomery
New Member
Interesting point about arms contracts giving them diplomatic leverage. They are a major provider of serious materiel all over the place - Syria, for example - so yes, this will give them influence.
How is syria a card except for causing ructions in the Security Council?
Syria is the only example - she is Russias only external port of access with an agreement in place - she has no others - hardly a demonstration of power
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
bonza if you actually read the threads you will find there different, i was asking something specific in each one rather than broadbrushing it, because then you get people saying you need to be more specific, also people who are interested in specific areas i.e navy, army, airforce, some people are only interested in certain topics, thats why i did it, but if you have removed them thats just destroyed my research thanks a bunch.
Russia by itself has always been limited by it's population density among other facts - Russia during the cold war was effectively bolstered by it's satellite nations. Russia on it's own has rarely had a global reach in the way that the US, France or the UK have had in the period post WWII.
With careful restructuring of their forces, they can be a regional power quite successfully - beyond that, as has been alluded to, friends are short on the ground and if Syria's regime is overthrown, I'm sure Russia will feel a backlash from their support of Assad during that struggle.
Basically, Russia is not the Warsaw Pact, and they need to make that shift in planning and assumption - or they'll just have too many unsupportable systems costing them a large chunk of the defence budget.
With careful restructuring of their forces, they can be a regional power quite successfully - beyond that, as has been alluded to, friends are short on the ground and if Syria's regime is overthrown, I'm sure Russia will feel a backlash from their support of Assad during that struggle.
Basically, Russia is not the Warsaw Pact, and they need to make that shift in planning and assumption - or they'll just have too many unsupportable systems costing them a large chunk of the defence budget.
montgomery
New Member
"Syria is the only example - she is Russias only external port of access with an agreement in place - she has no others - hardly a demonstration of power"
I mean to say that Russia's status as the second largest arms exporter on the planet, selling $6.5 billion worth of arms to 55 countries will give it a certain amount of influence, especially in the states that cannot get their weapons anywhere else.
Moscow's power is dependent on how far Beijing rises as a regional hegemon. If China pulls this off, then Moscow can expect a more salient role and more power as classic bandwagoning and balancing games are played out.
I mean to say that Russia's status as the second largest arms exporter on the planet, selling $6.5 billion worth of arms to 55 countries will give it a certain amount of influence, especially in the states that cannot get their weapons anywhere else.
Moscow's power is dependent on how far Beijing rises as a regional hegemon. If China pulls this off, then Moscow can expect a more salient role and more power as classic bandwagoning and balancing games are played out.
Sure. Russia has rather little in the way of hard power, beyond it's immediate surroundings. However Russia has considerable influence on other countries. Russia might not be able to fight a war half way around the globe, but Russia can provide a local proxy with the weapons to do so. They also wield considerable political influence. Their participation in the situation regarding Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan are all evidence of this. Current Russian leadership is rather clumsy internationally and often lacks the skill to capitalize on the power they do have, but that doesn't mean the power isn't there.
Describing Syria as a card is not accurate, in my opinion. What we should take away from the situation is that Russia still wields sufficient political influence to protect its client states from Western military intervention, even when it's more then justified.
montgomery
New Member
"Describing Syria as a card is not accurate, in my opinion. What we should take away from the situation is that Russia still wields sufficient political influence to protect its client states from Western military intervention, even when it's more then justified."
Don't forget that any power they have didn't stop the Israeli Air Force flying right across Syria and bombing it five years ago - and with implicit US backing courtesy of American ISR.
Don't forget that any power they have didn't stop the Israeli Air Force flying right across Syria and bombing it five years ago - and with implicit US backing courtesy of American ISR.
Well, Russia still has a permanent UN security council seat, which gives it a vote in the UN - which is what's stalling any UN intervention in Syria. Historically, the UN has been sidelined several times in the last few decades (GW 2003, Libya)
Outside of the UN, Russia has less sway and the UN appears to be increasingly less relevant so it's tempting to conclude that the security council seat may be less and less of a factor.
Geography and the lack of a clearly organised opposition in Syria has kept Assad in power - if access were easier and an opposition had emerged earlier, all the protests in the world on Russia's behalf wouldn't have been enough I think.
Outside of the UN, Russia has less sway and the UN appears to be increasingly less relevant so it's tempting to conclude that the security council seat may be less and less of a factor.
Geography and the lack of a clearly organised opposition in Syria has kept Assad in power - if access were easier and an opposition had emerged earlier, all the protests in the world on Russia's behalf wouldn't have been enough I think.
I think that's a very good way to draw the line between what Russia can and can't accomplish.
Even at this point, when it's much more obvious that Assad is losing power, but will kill plenty of opposition fighters in the process, then it ever was for Gaddafi, NATO is not considering military action. I'm pretty sure that this is no accident. All the protests on Russia's part can't stop the opposition from ousting Assad, but Russian leverage can prevent the West from being the ones to bring him down.
This means that the opposition (hardly a collection of democracy-minded liberals) will not be particularly friendly to the West, and will in the long run once again have to rely on Russia. This also means implicit recognition for Russian aspirations in the third world, from major Western powers. Finally lets consider how Russia has been reaching out to major European countries, working hard to establish ties, partnerships, and build trust. It's entirely possible that some of those countries may not be unsympathetic to Russia's position.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
The definition of Failed State is very 'bias' and only put Western Perspective. Based on that definition and scoring perspective (which usually being put by Western based NGO and think-tank), China has more risk becoming Failed State then the Bankrupt Greece
.Russia is big player relative to whom ? To USSR ? well off course much less so. However compared to emerging power like India, China or non US Western Power like UK and France, then yes Russia still can be counted part of Global Big Player.
It can put more International influence to other players "individually" outside US. Their weapon Industry is still only second to US (again I'm talking Russia vs other player as individual not as Group), which made them can wield influence for non-friendly West countries. In short for anti-west countries (which are still many of them), Russia still provide them an alternative 'grip' on International relationship.
Don't forgot despite slow down on Russian Tech development after the collapse of USSR, they are now reviving the path. SOYUZ is still the only viable manned space transport exists today after the retirement of Space Shuttle (well you can add China space capsule on that, which basically is also derive from Soyuz model).
Again, Russia is but a 'shadow' compared to what USSR relative can do in the height of it's power. However still is a big player.
How are they not a big player anymore?
In terms of military strength they are still making strides and last time I checked their defense budget has been getting higher over the past couple of years and they are inventing new things in all fields of their military. No, its no where near the US military budget, but Russia is still the only other country on this planet that produces all their own stuff, from Rockets that get launched into space, to satellites, missiles, planes, tanks, ships...the list just goes on..
Only other country that comes close to the same milestone is France, building most of their own stuff.
I wanted to say the UK, but outside their Navy, they rely on other countries, like their Eurofighter took the effort of 4 countries...and besides that they fly Apache's Chinacook's and C-130's which are American with slight UK mods....
Also wanted to say China, but I dont consider it your own when you just copy something and change the name..
So yes, Russia is still the only other country in the world besides US that builds all its own military supplies...and they are still inventing new things...
And I know this board is not about country vs country, but honestly...who would want to take Russia to war? Answer is no one..
In terms of military strength they are still making strides and last time I checked their defense budget has been getting higher over the past couple of years and they are inventing new things in all fields of their military. No, its no where near the US military budget, but Russia is still the only other country on this planet that produces all their own stuff, from Rockets that get launched into space, to satellites, missiles, planes, tanks, ships...the list just goes on..
Only other country that comes close to the same milestone is France, building most of their own stuff.
I wanted to say the UK, but outside their Navy, they rely on other countries, like their Eurofighter took the effort of 4 countries...and besides that they fly Apache's Chinacook's and C-130's which are American with slight UK mods....
Also wanted to say China, but I dont consider it your own when you just copy something and change the name..
So yes, Russia is still the only other country in the world besides US that builds all its own military supplies...and they are still inventing new things...
And I know this board is not about country vs country, but honestly...who would want to take Russia to war? Answer is no one..
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
quite agree
i quite agree with you, the iskander missle is highly advanced surface to surface missle, and the russians and world leading in air defence. all there kit is cheaper to produce/buy than the western counter parts and the stuff is reliable and easy/cheap to maintain. and some kit is just as good as the west's, and another point to note is there anti tank systems are world leading like the rpg 29 which is cheap to produce even the west were shocked at how well it performed, even managed to penetrate a challenger 2 tank, this weapon is so feared by the west that the new iraqi wasnt allowed to purchase it by order of the USA. i think lack of funding halts speedy production of the many systems they have planned.
i quite agree with you, the iskander missle is highly advanced surface to surface missle, and the russians and world leading in air defence. all there kit is cheaper to produce/buy than the western counter parts and the stuff is reliable and easy/cheap to maintain. and some kit is just as good as the west's, and another point to note is there anti tank systems are world leading like the rpg 29 which is cheap to produce even the west were shocked at how well it performed, even managed to penetrate a challenger 2 tank, this weapon is so feared by the west that the new iraqi wasnt allowed to purchase it by order of the USA. i think lack of funding halts speedy production of the many systems they have planned.
To me russia is a big power and of course a super power. I still feel threatened when nuclear weapons are mentioned for certain russia has a huge arsenal. In terms of millitary technology it still count among some of the best and countries like china and india, big powers in asia depends on russia and i think ''when russia sneeze china quakes'' afterall almost the entire chinese military hardware depends on russia and on this term how can a country like china be a rising talkless being claimed a superpower? A country without modern technology. Of recent russia has tested its pak fa t50 fifth generation stealth fighter even acclaimed to be the most technological 5th generation fighter plane, how do you grade the chengdu? Whereas china is bussy making problems in south china sea arrogating power, and territorial claims russia is not and big powers don't do so they have their stealth ways of getting what they want, look at the big way the usa goes its way i think that's the way of a supper power and that's the way russia thow. Russia still think it's talking of some equall shoulders with the us and of course the us has some great respect for russia. In the diplomatic front russia weld some reasonable diplomatic influence atleast on those countries that cannot talk any how about russia else it rubbish their deffence: cut arms sales to those countries, of course to me this is the primary reason the chinese are backing russian diplomatic position in areas like syria and it keep goading the chinese diplomatically. I think russia still possess a significant diplomatic territory where it exercise significant diplomatic influence. In the arms market today beside american arms the alternative is russian arms. Think about the S series of SAM. What else is needed to be a supper power that russia does not possess?
Russia is still a massive arms manufacturer and that counts for a lot.
Russia can determine world events and military outcomes simply by deciding to who it is willing to provide weapons to.
This gives it a clout well beyond its military capability ... which is still quite substantial.
Only the US has greater capability in terms of the size and the capability of its arms industry.
Russia can determine world events and military outcomes simply by deciding to who it is willing to provide weapons to.
This gives it a clout well beyond its military capability ... which is still quite substantial.
Only the US has greater capability in terms of the size and the capability of its arms industry.