Will Russia ever regain it's Military might?

[Grand Danois]

Alright. Time for a reminder of the rules of this forum:

In quest for Defencetalk.com to create a vibrant, mature defence community, we ask that you post with respect for all players - people in the news, journalists, fellow forum participants, their countries, leaders of their countries, and especially their armed forces, etc.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thank you.

 

[Whiskyjack]

When it comes to Russia, I tend to think that they have the ability to move towards a somewhat brighter future than has been the case since ’91.

They have paid off their overseas debt, they are making a lot of money from oil and gas and have a lot of reserves of both.

The economy is growing and as the economy grows so to will the standard of living, which should also lead to the population stabilising as things get better. Russia has the ability to educate its people and that will help on the economic front as the ability to produce relatively complex goods cheaply with an educated pool of labour has to help it economically.

If the Army moves towards the recently stated goal of 70% regular force (in a recent DT news article), with oil money to spend on R&D and procurement. There are definite possibilities.

Of course there is a lot to fix as well.

 

[Big-E]

Big-E, you need a BIG lesson in US history because if 'Russia' is replaced with USA, then your description matches that of USA for much of 19th and early 20th centuries.

If I was to make a comparison I would say exactly that. Russia today is very much like Chicago was under Boss Tweed. You can quit saying I need history lessons... I have a diploma on the wall that reads "The Military College of South Carolina... presents... with the degree of Bachelor of the Arts in History."

 

[swerve]

Swerve and eckherl:

One of the major Chinese energy problems is the poor efficiency in their production, which lead to an overconsumption of energy relative to production.

I saw somewhere that a very large part of the Chinese Railroads capacity was used for coal transport. Can You confirm that Swerve??

China burns a lot of coal, because it has a lot of coal. I don't know how much of the rail capacity is used for transporting that coal, but I'm sure it's significant, as it was in the UK until the 1980s. Because of the losses in long-distance electricity transmission, it's probably more energy-efficient than generating electricity only near coal mines, & coal for domestic heating (widely used) needs to be shipped to the consumers.

The Chinese government is now trying to force power stations to become more energy-efficient & less polluting, & bringing in controls on air pollution from domestic heating & motor vehicles, which also favour energy efficiency. IIRC they're also trying to raise electricity prices, to force industry to increase efficiency. But contrary to popular belief, the central government can't just issue a decree & make it so. Power is more diffuse than that.

 

[FutureTank]

The current situation is that EU and Russia are not at an eye to eye level. And then there is the former Eastern Bloc to consider. Example: Poland made a huge fuss recently over the energy/trade negotiations - only to annoy and assert itself agianst Russia..

I think Poles see it as their national duty to annoy Russia

Yes, to some degree. Would the Americans like to expand the US with Mexico? Doubt it..

GD....PLEASE!!!
California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona would all have been a part of Mexico if not for US expansion

Special relationship - likely. Fully fledged member - I don't see it. And the trends aren't in favour.

What trends are these?
I'm talking over a period of next 20 years. I woud suggest that after Putin there will come a very pro-EU government. Even Putin is very much influenced by Markel's policie, and Russia is historically influenced more by what happens in Europe then domestic considerations (Communism came from Germany).

 

[Big-E]

GD....PLEASE!!!
California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona would all have been a part of Mexico if not for US expansion

What are you talking about? Mexico started it. After we won the war we specifically voted against annexing Mexico.

 

[Whiskyjack]

What trends are these?
I'm talking over a period of next 20 years. I woud suggest that after Putin there will come a very pro-EU government. Even Putin is very much influenced by Markel's policie, and Russia is historically influenced more by what happens in Europe then domestic considerations (Communism came from Germany).

I tend to agree, long term Russia will move closer to the EU, as the EU will need Russian resourses (and cheap labour once Eastern Europe labour starts to get more expensive)

 

[FutureTank]

Russia has the ability to educate its people and that will help on the economic front as the ability to produce relatively complex goods cheaply with an educated pool of labour has to help it economically.

What makes a successful economy is a creative population. Russians have a history of this creativity.

 

[Waylander]

But not a history of a successfull economy.
Not for a land with its ressources and population.

 

[FutureTank]

Mexico started it.

I think its a matter of opinion who started it, but look at US history. War with British for Canada. In 1819, by terms of the Adams-Onís Treaty, Spain ceded Florida to the United States in exchange for the American renunciation of any claims on Texas. Louisiana purchase. Expansion in the North-West, California...

If I was Mexico, then by 1846 the writing was not just written on the wall, but delivered in spades

However the power parity was not in US favour in 1846. US was far from a 'power' until WW2, so Mexico felt it had every chance to contest takeover of its territory (as it saw it).

 

[FutureTank]

But not a history of a successfull economy.
Not for a land with its ressources and population.

It seems to me we are not appointed judges of history

 

[FutureTank]

Alright. Time for a reminder of the rules of this forum:

In quest for Defencetalk.com to create a vibrant, mature defence community, we ask that you post with respect for all players - people in the news, journalists, fellow forum participants, their countries, leaders of their countries, and especially their armed forces, etc.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thank you.

GD, political correctness is against my religious beliefs, and you need to respect that please

 

[webmaster]

GD, political correctness is against my religious beliefs, and you need to respect that please

That shouldn't stop you from respecting others...

 

[Big-E]

If I was Mexico, then by 1846 the writing was not just written on the wall, but delivered in spades

However the power parity was not in US favour in 1846. US was far from a 'power' until WW2, so Mexico felt it had every chance to contest takeover of its territory (as it saw it).

After Santa Anna's defeat at the battle of San Jacinto he signed the Treaty of Valseco which gave over Mexican claims to Texas all the way to the Rio Grande. As he was defacto leader by suspending the constitution it makes it a legally binding document.

As far as power parity Mexico knew it's rusted Brown Bess' they bought from the UK were garbage. They knew their arms factory produced inferior gun powder. They new their soldiers had to fire from the hip because they had to overload their muskets. They knew their colonial artillery was no match for the light horse guns of the US Army. They knew their navy was no match for the steam frigates of the USN. They knew they had civil revolts in the Yucatan and other sectors of the country. Mexico was in no position to fight a war and they new it. They fought out of pride and arrogance.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD....PLEASE!!!
California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona would all have been a part of Mexico if not for US expansion

Economic connectivity is not the only prerequisite for sharing an union. It has to be organic.

Common principles and tradition of govt, judiciary, trade etc. springs to mind.
The past year has shown several cases where EU and Russia are at odds. More than previously I would think. It means that foreign investment and transfer of best practices are stifled. Foreign investors are also increasingly being discouraged by being preyed upon. (all sizes of business, not just big corp.)

The growth in the Russian GDP is primarily driven by the energy export.

This points towards the lack of diversification of the economy and lack of ownership and enterprise on the small-medium level. Which again points towards the lack of a strong middle-class, which again indicates why it is such a weak democracy and why there is a lack of individual ownership in the wealth and fate of Russia.

If Russia wants a strong military, above is what that has to be developed. And, curiously, this is also what has to be developed to share values on a state and citizen level with Western Europe. This brings us full circle back to tradition of govt, judiciary, trade etc. which is part of a nations worldview.

Sure it can be developed through the economy. Is it? No. What we're seeing is increased centralisation and control, growth in GDP comes from these sectors. Purging of foreign influence in strategic sectors. Culling of govt critical press.

So energy supply and trade is not the only areas of friction. And the former Eastern Bloc countries are really enjoying being free of the ties of Russia.

Btw, demographic trends seem not to have changed much since 2003...

What trends are these?

As per above.

I'm talking over a period of next 20 years. I woud suggest that after Putin there will come a very pro-EU government. Even Putin is very much influenced by Markel's policie, and Russia is historically influenced more by what happens in Europe then domestic considerations (Communism came from Germany).

So you expect the Putin appointed replacement will digress from his values?

Btw, re Merkel influence what are you thinking of?

Not the most structured post, but readable, I hope.

 

[FutureTank]

Mexican claims to Texas.

Don't want to get into the Mexican War debate here. My point was that US was and did expand when its interests dictated so. Would Mexico be independent in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?

Would USA be USA in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?

My point is that there is a very strong trend for expansion nad integration in Europe, and Russia had been a part of Europe before, and will be again. I'm suggesting the process has already begun, and is probably unstopable.

 

[Big-E]

Don't want to get into the Mexican War debate here. My point was that US was and did expand when its interests dictated so. Would Mexico be independent in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?

Would USA be USA in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?

My point is that there is a very strong trend for expansion nad integration in Europe, and Russia had been a part of Europe before, and will be again. I'm suggesting the process has already begun, and is probably unstopable.

My point on Mexico is that pride and arrogance destroyed their country... somewhat similar to Russian dogma.

The last time Russia had ties with Europe was when Catherine the Great was monarch. Enough has happened since then to kill any positives from that experience. They still choose to be isolated and maintaining the status quo. A perfect example of this was the Kursk incident. They let those men die because they didn't want Western assistance. For the EU to accept Russia they will have to kill corruption, defeat the Mafia, stop killing presidential candidates, institute economic reforms, establish strong lasting democratic institutions and triple their PPP to EU standards.

 

[FutureTank]

Economic connectivity is not the only prerequisite for sharing an union. it has to be organic.

Common principles and tradition of govt, judiciary, trade etc. springs to mind.
The past year has shown several cases where EU and Russia are at odds. More than previously I would think. It means that foreign investment and transfer of best practices are stifled. Foreign investors are also increasingly being discouraged by being preyed upon. (all sizes of business, not just big corp.)

The growth in the Russian GDP is primarily driven by the energy export.

This points towards the lack of diversification of the economy and lack ownership and enterprise on the small-medium level. Which again points towards the lack of a strong middle-class, which again indicates why it is such a weak democracy and why there is a lack of individual ownership in the wealth and fate of Russia.

I think its early days yet, and much of your comment may be coloured by media reporting. Don't forget that Russia has no insentive or desire to participate organic integration. However it is happening through the 'grass roots' of information trickle via immigration/emigration. Increased trade with Europe will force acceptance of standards, and from there other issues will follow.

If Russia wants a strong military, this is what that has to be developed. And, curiously, this is also what has to be developed to share values on a state and citizen level with Western Europe. This brings us full circle back to tradition of govt, judiciary, trade etc. which is part of a nations worldview.

Yes, yes. And at one time Russian elite spoke French, and half the engineers in Russia were from Germany.

Sure it can be developed through the economy. Is it? No. What we're seeing is increased centralisation and control, growth in GDP comes from these sectors. Purging of foreign influence in strategic sectors. Culling of govt critical press.

And you expected differently from a President who is ex-KGB?
Please be reasonable GD. You can not go from Brezhnev to 'open society' in one generation (20 years). Society-wide changes take 3-4 generations, but Soviet society was already in the process of change 20 years before 1991, which is why I give it another 40 years of transition (from 1991, or 30 years from 2001). This seems conservative as an estimate to me based on other examples of historical transitions.

So energy supply and trade is not the only areas of friction. And the former Eastern Bloc countries are really enjoying being free of the ties of Russia.

Energy is a market-based conflict, not a state-wide policy issue.
Yes they are enjoying their time...kind of like college kids during first month away from home Then the dirty clothes starts to pile up, there is never time to do the dishees, the fridge runs empty...

So you expect the Putin appointed replacement will digress from his values?

I thought we are discouraged to discuss politics here? However the answer is yes.

Btw, re Merkel influence what are you thinking of?

Same as above. Early days yet, but she and her Cabinet appear to be taking a more dynamic approach to Germany's policy. She is also from the East, and THAT alone is a message enough to Putin.

 

[Grand Danois]

Re coloured media, I tried to dig up a reasonable series of FDI figures. No luck.

AFAIK politics can sometimes be allowed as long as they are related to defence (pretext military strength of Russia in the future) and if conducted civilly.

Note. I know the picture ain't as bleak as I paint it. But there is no reason to make the arguments for your position.

The future will tell.

Nuff said. (by me.)

 

[FutureTank]

My point on Mexico is that pride and arrogance destroyed their country... somewhat similar to Russian dogma.

American pride is a government policy today...but many in the World think US is arrogant, and there is that 'democracy dogma'.
Ok, please don't bite my head of in your reply
What I'm saying is that perceptions can be subjective based on POV.

The last time Russia had ties with Europe was when Catherine the Great was monarch. Enough has happened since then to kill any positives from that experience. They still choose to be isolated and maintaining the status quo. A perfect example of this was the Kursk incident. They let those men die because they didn't want Western assistance. .

Actually it was Nicholas II in 1917. You must have missed all the stocks and bonds that were lost by foreigh investors after the Revolution.

For the EU to accept Russia they will have to kill corruption, defeat the Mafia, stop killing presidential candidates, institute economic reforms, establish strong lasting democratic institutions and triple their PPP to EU standards.

Kill corruption - late 19th century USA
Defeat Mafia - early 20th century USA
stop killing presidential candidates - shall I make a list from elsewhere that includes presidents?
institute economic reforms - it seems this is the job of EVERY incoming administration (going from command economy to market was change enough IMHO)
establish strong lasting democratic institutions - it seems people have opinions about US democratic institutions also (and is US democratic model appropriate for all countries?)
tripple their PPP to EU standards - Purchasing power parity ? How about going back to Gold Standard?