Future of Russian Military
- Thread starter Wall83
- Start date
The United States, NATO, PRC and Japan are all in that category and have military forces that can act on it. An indication of how threatened Russia feels by this would be that the Russians have been openly hinting of a presence in the Western Hemisphere. That is a huge strategic geopolitical no no that the Russians are all too familiar with. Russians historically only act out this way when they perceive a threat.
The Russians are watching as NATO and the EU gooble up it's neighbors in the south and west through diplomatic maneuvers while China reaches great power status to the east. More worrisome than U.S. Troops within driving distance of Russia proper is the erosion of Russia's only credible defense against a nuclear power.
The United States is building a missile shield with all the components necessary to lay the foundation for what would have been called "Star Wars" in the 1980's. Right now BMD sites are mostly fixed, few and only capable of dealing with limited threats. It won't stay that way for long nor will it be limited to missile defense. The United States is about to do to, and use Space the way it has done with the oceans.
Russia is starting to feel just a bit enveloped nowadays and will respond as best it can which for now is limited to Strategic bomber patrols and pressure on neighboring states where Russian ground forces could reach if necessary.
-DA
It is very hard to directly PPP due to socialistic nature of USSR - most vital services were either completely free (medicine, lodging/apartments, education, some entertainment) or so heavy subsidized it could be considered nearly free - partially tourism, sport, some kinds of food, etc.
Still, depending on computing method, 320 billions $ in 1988 ~ 700-800 billions $ now. Just keep in mind, these 320 billions which allegedly USSR spend in 1988 is also very doubtful figure, most likely having little touch with reality. More conservative estimation, based on actual USSR archive data, is about 5-6% of USSR GDP, or ~ 150 billions in 1985 dollars. Note, this share remains nearly unchanged since 70x, so this defeats common myth about SDI program affecting USSR defense spending.
However, to this figure we should add some "reserve" and "double-purpose" civilian facilities which produced civilian good but were build with "military mobilization" possibility in mind. This of course negatively affected they economical effectivity. This is gray and almost completely unresearched USSR fenomen.
5-6% of USSR GDP? I thought it was more like 20-23% of USSR GDP?
And based on ur estimate that would be USSR's ~150 billions to US ~425 BIllion? That doesnt make sense.
Are you joking? It was one of usual propaganda myths. Now researchers have actual archive data and have pretty good estimation of USSR GDP and defense spending. Also keep in mind, USSR / US GDP per capita and living standard index were constantly improving from 40x to 80x - i.e. USSR slowly catched up rich West. On average, in 80x USSR citizens already lived better than "2nd-grade" West countries like Italy or Spain.
But keep in mind - as i said, we should add "hidden" upkeep cost in form of "reserve", "double purpose" and "mobilization" facilities, buildings, research programs, etc. As i said, this reduced they effectivity in civilian life. This need much more complete research, and in fact we may well find what USSR really spend as much as another 5-10% GDP on that - i.e. up to 10-15% GDP overall.
Still, this kind of "double purpose" facilities or "national security" affected buildings/processes/business/etc. take a hefty share (not reflected in military budget) of GDP in any country, so it is hard to say how much economical overhead for national security reason USSR had additional compared to other countries.
Why not? Remember - compared to America USSR was still pretty poor, and USSR engineers always prioritized very practical and cost effective approach.
P.S. To give you an idea what means 25% GDP for military purposes:
North Korea is believed to spend 20-25% GDP on military. By that, NK have 20% of ALL 17-54 age mens in army.
Adding to that, its much more cheaper to to R&D and produce something in USSR than it is in the west.
And MY GOD!!.. if the PPP is correct, Russia has to spend ~700-800 Billion on Defence in todays money to keep the Soviet Era Military capability? H** S***.
But Even the US is spending 600+ million on defence, and considering its much more cheaper in Russia than in US, does it mean there is a slowdown on defence spending by the US?
Hence had the Soviet Union survived to this day, the US military spending would have breached $1 Trillion!!
And MY GOD!!.. if the PPP is correct, Russia has to spend ~700-800 Billion on Defence in todays money to keep the Soviet Era Military capability? H** S***.
But Even the US is spending 600+ million on defence, and considering its much more cheaper in Russia than in US, does it mean there is a slowdown on defence spending by the US?
Hence had the Soviet Union survived to this day, the US military spending would have breached $1 Trillion!!
Pretty much yes. Of course, 700-800 billions in PPP, that means 300-400 billions in natural $$.
Yes. After cold war, America dramatically reduced defense spending. Iraq war and corresponding "war against terror" greatly raised military spending again, although probably still not up to cold war level.
Why not? US already spend obsense amount of money on "national security" on the matters which were unthinkable even 10 years ago. Like checking everyone in airports for 3-inch scissors, confiscating electronic media from everyone on border, telephone tapping and spying on own citizens without court decision - all this currently do not add on military budget, but in fact nearly serve same purpose of national security.
Often these things are not reflected in any state budget, but still in fact burdens economic - like already mentioned airport checking.
Doubt so. We shouldnt underestimate the economic burdens of such laws and government behavior. Generally, i have strong suspicion what recent US economic troubles take roots in that "national security" strengthing.
But the question here is not about what is cheaper. The most cheapest thing would be concentration camps a-la Hitler then.
The question here is fundamental human rights and live quality for everyone. America , over last 15 years, increasingly becoming totalitarian police state, in current form with more strict control over own citizens (nevermind foreigners) than former communist states. Right now US have more prisoners than ANYONE in the world, including such dictatorship states as China or NK. In fact, the amount of prisoners now in America is greater than was in USSR by Stalin times. America becomes something what americans always hated and opposed earlier.
Since 2001, there is officially no private live in America. Before that time, CIA and FBI also could interfere in private live without court decision - but that was illegal, and conducted at much lesser scale. Now - it is perfectly legal to spy against own citizens without court permission and even without any suspicion.
Like last mentioned marasmatic law about rights to confiscate and check electronic medians - it becomes worse and worse every year, at very rapid speed.
GWOT is causing some of the economic problems-i.e. the massive increase in the budget deficit under Bush since 9/11.
Feanor, in cash terms it is cheaper to lose the Skyscrapers in a Terrorist attack-but the human cost is even more intolerable. And I would not call invading Iraq part of the GWOT! (But going any further is too political).
To answer the OP, Russian Defence will never be a joke-they will always have a naturally large army, and will always have their countries weather and geography on their side.
Feanor, in cash terms it is cheaper to lose the Skyscrapers in a Terrorist attack-but the human cost is even more intolerable. And I would not call invading Iraq part of the GWOT! (But going any further is too political).
To answer the OP, Russian Defence will never be a joke-they will always have a naturally large army, and will always have their countries weather and geography on their side.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
The Russian military is no joke. Yes its true they are in a slump but they are trying to get out of it. I would expect Russia to be more powerful 20 years from now and maybe as powerful as the old USSR 100 years from now.
Don't forget the economic shock that followed it immediately. Cut down on travel, hysteria about terrorist attacks.
That hysteria was exactly used (and later maintained!) by US government to tighten "national security", gain much more power, issue laws which violate human rights, attack innocent (at least in 9/11) countries, etc.
So we could well question what caused more damage - 9/11 itself or government, which used it as ground for various not pretty moves and laws.
Plus, of course, you conduct wrong logic here - you assume what there will be additional terroristic acts without that "national security" strengthening. This is of course not proven.
Generally, somewhere the line between security and human rights should be drawn. I feel right now US stepped far too far after that line.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I dont think so mate, the spending behaviour of the credit sector and lack of adequate regulation had a hell of a lot more to do with the US's financial woes than the Patriot act. In that case it was private institutions (which funnily enough it usually is in free market economies) and a lack of or bad regulation/law that allowed the sub prime morguage market to implode, not larger draconian laws. National defence spemnding had stuff all to do with it. In that case most of the spending acts as an economic stimulous because all of the money goes to americans/ US corporations.
The post 911 hysteria was the driveing factor behind legislation like the partiot act, and it is reminicent of the dark MaCarthy days (notably in the rantings of men like Bill O'riely). Time will pass and the wounds will start to heal, and (unconsititutional IMO) legislation like the patriot act will be repealed. We passed a similar act in my country (much less extreeme) which was due to the similar mood, hopefully things will change here too.
Thats too, but as i said - we shouldnt underestimate economic burdens of GOAT, GW2, Patriotic act and likes. At very least they greatly amplified the "behaviour of the credit sector and lack of adequate regulation" problem.
Agree. We'll see how it turns out.
I just saw an interview of the Indian Navy's chief yesterday, he made a very good point :
It takes about 10 years to make one state-of-the-art ship.
And it takes around 50 years to make a modern, well equipped fleet.
That shows how much Russia will need to spend to meet it's Navy's requirements in the next few decades. Also, it may take more than 50 years to get both the carrier project AND the rest of the Navy ready and modernized.
Some quick facts on the growing Russian economy:
-10 years ago, Russian economy was a 200 billion economy, this year it has crossed $1.4 trillion mark.
-Today Russia is the 8th largest economy in the world in PPP, and by the end of the year it will overtake France to become the world's 6th largest.
-Last year foreign investment surged by a factor of 2.5 touching $100 billion.
-This year the Hydrocarbon exports will bring in more than $300 billion in earnings.
To put that into perspective in the 90's russia earned around $30 billion a year, roughly the same as the Soviet Union during the peak of the oil boom in the late 70's.
Putin is putting alot of money into the economy, from the boom in the petrol dollars right now. Also Russia is investing hugely on diversifying its economy, so as not to depend on petrol dollars in the future. Infrastructure development is also receiving massive boosts in order to support its growing economy.
The Soviet union had double the population of Russia now, and it spent massive amount of money to prop up its eastern bloc and friendly country allies everywhere, but there is no more the case as there is no more Soviet Union, hence alot of cash that's being generated is being put into the country.
It looks like whatever $$$ Russia is putting into its rapidly growing economy will start showing its result in the near future. Hence its ability to bring back to life its old military power looks set on track.
Forgot to add, the figures stated above is from the "Hindu" newspaper column by a Russian Analyst, dated 4th Aug 2008.
-10 years ago, Russian economy was a 200 billion economy, this year it has crossed $1.4 trillion mark.
-Today Russia is the 8th largest economy in the world in PPP, and by the end of the year it will overtake France to become the world's 6th largest.
-Last year foreign investment surged by a factor of 2.5 touching $100 billion.
-This year the Hydrocarbon exports will bring in more than $300 billion in earnings.
To put that into perspective in the 90's russia earned around $30 billion a year, roughly the same as the Soviet Union during the peak of the oil boom in the late 70's.
Putin is putting alot of money into the economy, from the boom in the petrol dollars right now. Also Russia is investing hugely on diversifying its economy, so as not to depend on petrol dollars in the future. Infrastructure development is also receiving massive boosts in order to support its growing economy.
The Soviet union had double the population of Russia now, and it spent massive amount of money to prop up its eastern bloc and friendly country allies everywhere, but there is no more the case as there is no more Soviet Union, hence alot of cash that's being generated is being put into the country.
It looks like whatever $$$ Russia is putting into its rapidly growing economy will start showing its result in the near future. Hence its ability to bring back to life its old military power looks set on track.
Forgot to add, the figures stated above is from the "Hindu" newspaper column by a Russian Analyst, dated 4th Aug 2008.
Last edited:
How much of our current economic growth is geniune growth and how much is just inflation? Inflation for 2008 so far has topped 10%.
EDIT: When you add money to the economy in the short run it's easier to adjust prices then to adjust production. Hence pouring money into the economy simply creates runaway inflation with only a little bit of actual production expansion. This is actually why the stabfond was created. It's not a rainy day fund like some western articles suggest, but an attempt to stem inflation and to prevent overexpansion.
EDIT: When you add money to the economy in the short run it's easier to adjust prices then to adjust production. Hence pouring money into the economy simply creates runaway inflation with only a little bit of actual production expansion. This is actually why the stabfond was created. It's not a rainy day fund like some western articles suggest, but an attempt to stem inflation and to prevent overexpansion.