Is russia still a big player

[Waylander]

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..

You are aware that France, while building lots of its stuff at home, also fields lots of hardware which is sourced from other countries or is developed in joint projects with others?

Flying stuff alone includes boatloads of foreign and jointly developed stuff. E-3 Sentry, Alpha Jet, C-130, Transall, A400M, KC-135, Tiger just to name a few...

Don't look into amunitions stuff like this.

As for Russia. Their idea of procuring everything at home is eroding more and more with amphibious ships, trucks, APCs, field hospitals, whole training centers etc. being bought from foreign companies.

 

[Feanor]

As for Russia. Their idea of procuring everything at home is eroding more and more with amphibious ships, trucks, APCs, field hospitals, whole training centers etc. being bought from foreign companies.

Well truth is Russia was never able to produce all of its own equipment. The USSR was (for the most part). Russia never had enough money to truly re-arm itself. It only got that money very, very, recently. And as soon as it did, it had to start importing equipment from abroad.

 

[Pendekar]

I don't understand why some peoples claimed that Russia was well on it's way into a success when Boris Yeltsin rolled a tank into a parliement and brought russia into a brink of economic failure.

Then when Putin brought russia out of a brink of economic failure and into an era prosperity, he was branded as a leader of a soon to be fail state.

 

[GRapp]

Russia is still a big player no doubt about it. They still are a big player in my opinion due to there history. Although the U.S. spends about 556 billion dollars a year on our armed forces, so if any circumstance we got into a conflict the U.S. could resolve it.

 

[DrewUSA]

RuSsia a superpower?

Superpower is a world that you should look up before calling Russia one. First of all, besides a military that is all but falling apart, Putin has taken steps to bring the aerospace and defense contractors back and up to date cause that is where the true military power comes from. Yes their exports to any nation we won't or don't sell arms to loves Russia (and France for that matter). It is the economic status that Russia is currently missing. Once Russia and China's currency are increased to the IMF's currency basket and with the World Bank, this is the key to start to move closer towards superpower status. They are only small portions right now. This allows you to borrow more and have greater influence over other nations besides with military strength. Russia (and China), have a lot more data to steal from our programs and then build these programs, in sufficient numbers. Maintaining the equipment is what seemed to cause Russia's collapse of its military the last time, sustainability is vital. A superpower can sustain. I believe China has a bigger problem here then most think when talking about how powerful they truly are. Yes GDP close to 10 trillion is great (US =15 trillion) but when u divide that with how many people live there. GDP PER capita, you have something like $4,000.00 to something like $48,000 in the US. Rough numbers but population of census 2010 around 312 million Americans. China, believe 1.9-2 billion as of Jan 2012. Either way, Just look on google earth and the difference in landscapes, climates, amount of land, surroundings.... Strategically I like our odds.

 

[the concerned]

Militarily i think this could be the last roll of the dice for Russia as after weapons programs like the T-50 pak-fa i would wonder who is going to buy Russian weapons by then China and India their 2 biggest buyers will be developing their own equipment so it will struggle to finance new programs.

 

[DrewUSA]

And the bigger issue with China and India

first of all you have close to 3 billion people or some 39% of the worlds population between India and China and resource scarcity is already starting to become an issue. add up the populations of the entire Asia Continent and you will really be baffled. clean water, let alone our world food production/cost, then add population future projections on top of increased weather intensity that we have already seen around the world. that entire Continent is at war or has war roots and the US has the obligation to stand up for the"small person" and their individual freedoms. but either way Russia and the US relations right now is small compared to India and Pakistan, China and its disputed land and water territories, Taiwan, North Korea, and the list goes on. remember anything that happens there... (i.e. nuclear, chem, biological) would as we know from Japan's recent nuclear accident, that any hostile actions taken place can create a very dangerous situation not only for our foreign allies and their security, the entire eco system or the pacific and not to mention what could eventually end up across the country from coast to coast, contaminating the US. i think North Korea needs to learn its place just like i did growing up with 5 brothers being the youngest.... teach them once, supply advanced sm2 ABM and sm3 once deployed publicly, and shoot down anything that is launched as soon as it is launched. (Same with Iran, we completely surround it.) hey when i was 8, i had to learn the hard way not to hit or provoke someone 5 times my size and talk S***, there will be consequences . their citizens don't even have the right to communicate with the outside world... so whats the difference between a slave and a north Korean? a slave got whipped for speaking bad about his owner a NK would get shot. makes slavery look humane.

 

[tonyget]

US. Rough numbers but population of census 2010 around 312 million Americans. China, believe 1.9-2 billion as of Jan 2012. Either way, Just look on google earth and the difference in landscapes, climates, amount of land, surroundings.... Strategically I like our odds.

China's latest population statistics is 1.3 billion. American population growth rate is twice China's ,did you know that ?

 

[DrewUSA]

Made a few mistakes that morning... I am sorry, read on.

Thanks, but I would like to point out with the current need of employees and improvements in everyday Chinese lives, along with what is going on over there, I believe otherwise, and I should have posted this from dot china-briefing dot com, a few other places I get my information from besides the tradition route if you are really interested, email me and I would be happy to send you some info on the official stats and what the people counting have said. Even a couple of the official counts are off, Ill try to put two links below and then subtract and see the difference…. we, nor they really don’t know. Its best guess and because of the One Child, they have A LOT of Illegal children:

www dot china-briefing dot com
by a Chinese Daily News Brief
"Is China’s Population Really 1.3 Billion?

Sept. 1 - The population figure promoted for China that is accepted by the international community and acknowledged by Beijing is 1.3 billion.

This figure has been promoted for some years now. In assessing the reliability of this statistic, we need to look at other factors. The only way Beijing can calculate for this figure accurately is by undertaking a national population census. The last one was undertaken was in 2000/2001. This census was abandoned halfway through as the census takers could not obtain accurate responses, mainly because of distrust as to the actual purpose of the poll.

China’s population therefore continues to be based on the last complete census carried out in the country, which was 19 years ago in 1988/89. The 1.3 billion figure then, as far as we can ascertain, dates back from this census.

We will take an educated guess as to the likely trend that has happened since then. Taking the annual average global population growth figure of about 2.2 to 2.3 percent over a period of 19 years, this may add about 200-300 million Chinese. However, we are unsure how the annual death rate – statistics of which seem to not be available– would affect this estimation. The population growth for countries like Kenya and Philippines is about 4.3 percent, and for most developed countries in Europe about 1.4 percent.

Since 1976, China has adopted a one child policy. Traditionally, the Chinese rural population relies on parents supported by many children to ensure that the family can survive and prosper. Although in recent years, this one child policy has been relaxed in certain areas, it is still in force by legislation in China. This means that parents in rural areas who have more than one child can only legally register the first one. This creates a vast number of unregistered children, who have no legal registration or what is known as a hukou and cannot receive state benefits.

The majority of the illegal migrant population in China’s major cities are known to be unregistered, hence the mobile phone numbers spray painted around cities by dubious agencies and individuals that offer fake documentation to illegal migrants.Although no actual statistics exist, we could surmise a guess and estimate that unregistered post-1976 children amount to as much as 200 - 300 million people.

Therefore if you take the population figure of 1.3 billion, add in the growth since the last full census, plus the possible additional figures for unregistered children - then it could be possible that the population for China today could be anything between 1.8 to 2 billion people.

We would like to emphasize that these figures are from various personal observations and have not been formally evaluated. We accept that some of the factors above may be inaccurate. However, the main point here is that nobody, least of all the Chinese government, knows what the real population of China is today which is most probably higher than the published figure of 1.3 billion."

I will tell you now, Google the links because I am still New and I cant post LINKS... How can i prove myself?
Oneww.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.TotalCountries of the World - immigration, geography, economy, government, history, religion, climate, travel, maps, flagsPopulation by Country, 1950, 2000, 2015, 2025, 2050 (Medium-Fertility Variant)And this one I like...:ww.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_asiaGeoHiveHistoric, current and future population: Asiacheck it out, 75% increase in world population, in Asia. I’m sorry I put the wrong information up, I had an off day that day and type in one program to post in another and do multiple, mostly for energy. Anyway, that continent has a huge resource problem, which is why it is building so many subs. They are a great defense from aircraft carriers.


sorry again.
.peace.

 

[swerve]

Rough numbers but population of census 2010 around 312 million Americans. China, believe 1.9-2 billion as of Jan 2012.

That Chinese population figure is pure fantasy, & the article is nonsense. Its methods of calculation are a joke, & the bases on which they are calculated ridiculous. The 1990 census showed a population of 1.133 bn, not 1.3 bn, so projecting forward from that census on the basis of a starting population of 1.3 bn is ridiculous.

Its claim that the last census was in 2000/1 & was abandoned part-way through is false. The 2000 census was completed, & there was a census in November 2010. That census counted people by actual residency rather than registration, because the Chinese government was aware of the huge numbers of unregistered urban residents, & wished to get more accurate figures for real, rather than registered, populations. Indeed, the 2000 census also counted people by residence, regardelss of registration, provided they'd been living in the same location for at least 6 months, & thus counted 60 million more urban residents than the registers showed.

The 2010 census showed a population of 1.34 billion. While not 100% accurate, no serious demographers think this number is grossly inaccurate, & they'd all laugh at anyone who suggested the real population is 50% more.

There's no evidence of large numbers of unregistered people in rural areas. There are, in fact, about 200 million people registered as living in rural areas but absent, working in cities. Many of these people are legal temporary residents, but with permanent residency in the countryside, but many millions are living & working illegally in the cities - hence the spray-painted mobile phone numbers. But they still have legal residency registration - just in the countryside, not where they live.

The strict one child policy applies only to cities, not the countryside (though some rural officials are over-zealous), where the policy is not one child, but up to two. The old need for sons to work the family farm to support the aged parents is greatly diminished, & rapidly becoming completely obsolete. Rural areas are now largely, & increasingly, dependent on money earned by migrant workers, with grandparents looking after grandchildren whose parents work in cities & send money home. The government is also expanding the coverage of old-age pensions at an astonishingly fast rate.

Demographers express concern about two population problems in China, & neither of them is the presence of hundreds of millions of uncounted people. One is the skewed sex ratio (too many boys & young men), the other is the small number of children overall. The only reasons the population is still growing is because of increasing life expectancy, & demographic inertia, i.e. that past high growth is still working its way through, with a big bulge of 35-45 year olds & a smaller bulge of 20-25 year olds getting older.

Aha! Your article was published in September 2008. That explains the strange dates, but leads us to this question: why are you posting four year old articles as if they're current?

[Edit]
China Briefing is owned by an accountancy firm founded by a bloke called Christopher Anthony Devonshire-Ellis (described as principal of the firm), who is, one might say, an interesting character. He claims to be a Scottish baron. The barony was purchased last year. Note that it has been illegal to sell British noble titles since 1925, apart from Scottish feudal baronies. Official registers are maintained of English & other Scottish noble titles, but there is no official register of Scottish feudal baronies, leading to a proliferation of firms purporting to sell them. Even if the barony which has been bought is genuine, ownership of it does not give the owner a noble title, or the dignity of baron, or the right to arms. That has to be obtained by petitioning the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

Mr Ellis is accused of misrepresenting his academic qualifications, employment history, the nature of his acquisition of a Scottish feudal barony, & access to Chinese officials (specifically, making false claims of meetings with senior Chinese officials). I am not able to assess the accuracy of these accusations.

Christopher Devonshire-Ellis
More comments

This should be borne in mind when reading the website.

 

[StobieWan]

China is in for an interesting time of things in the next twenty or thirty years then ? Their population is going to age *dramatically* due to that one child per couple ruling, and their ratio of boys to girls is looking incredibly poor in many areas - some schools have a ratio of 7 boys to 1 girl for instance.

I assume at some point that one child rule will be relaxed or dismissed entirely, but that still will create a tremendous pressure for migration into China, in the same sense and for the same reason that Europe experienced this. I'm thinking of some areas in rural Italy for instance where the greater proportion of residents are immigrants from outside the EU, simply because the villages and towns would disappear without them.

Interesting times ahead for sure.

Back on topic with Russia, they've a fairly distorted military composed of a lot of kit that's redundant, way more nuclear weapons than they need, but they're gradually working their way to a more balanced capability. Economically, they're stymied by massive and endemic corruption in terms of the legal system and that's going to put off foreign investment and make trade difficult.


Ian

 

[explorer9]

Russia is still a powerful country may be we can put it in regional power category. It poses huge arms and arms manufacturing industry, vast reserve of hydrocarbons, above all huge food grain production and very large armed forces. After the dissolution of Soviet Union the Russian federation contained its sphere of influence in to the breakaway republics of Soviet Union. It took 15 years to resurge the Russians in to international foray now they are expanding their sphere of influence from central Asia and Caucasus in the south Asian and west Asian region. They have wonderful relationship with India and now they cajoling with Pakistan to foothold in to the south Asia. There unbendable stand on Syrian issue is a clear sign of their new found confidence. So Russia has resurged from the doldrums of dismemberment of Soviet Union and the time will witness the Russian tough stand on different international forums

 

[Kantervo]

Indeed it is!

IMHO Russia can still be a game-changer, especially in the political battle for Arctic! Just recently Russian Armed Forces flexed their military muscles:

"On 27 September 2012 Russian naval, land and air forces completed major joint military maneuvers in the north-western part of the country. Over 7,000 personnel, more than 20 ships and submarines, 30 planes and helicopters were involved in the pace of the drill. Military servicemen from the Western Military District practiced the scenarios of countering enemy attacks from sea, protecting civilian ships that pass through the Northern Sea Route from pirates, and performing rescue missions in the Arctic environment.
Special attention was paid to exercising the measures of civilian infrastructure protection. This included the deployment of marine units to remote areas by submarines and ships. Their task was to land on to a hasty coastal area of operations and defend industrial and research facilities situated there with the support from a combined arms brigade of the Western Military District.
During the final day of the exercise surface ships and submarines had performed several launches of cruise missiles that successfully hit training targets.
According to military experts, such hostilities are not likely to happen in the foreseen future, considering current political situation in the world. Such developments of Russian policy in the areas of military capabilities development take into account the expanding militarization of the Arctic region and the principle of “what if…?”.
As long as foreign states or alliances retain and develop their military capabilities in the Arctic Region, Russian armed forces will prepare for a possible use of military means to counter the activities of separate terrorist groups as well as the actions of foreign forces."

So in the existing 'game of thrones', where the US, Russia and China try to develop effective non-nuclear strategic weapons, all players are really big.

 

[colay]

Assessing Russia’s Military Reforms: A Bridge Too Far? | SLDInfo

On paper Russia has formidable capabilities andtpeople's attention is naturally drawn to the high-profile weapons programs like the new-generation aircraft, subs, ICBMs, etc while there is a less flattering picture behind the scenes. It's much less capable of projecting power away from the homeland and the structural reforms being implemented are still a long way off from being achieved.

 

[Feanor]

The article seems out of date.

The transformation of the unit structure from divisions to brigades has been criticized for having insufficient command, reconnaissance and logistics components.

The insufficient command elements were due to a lack of modern command and control gear, that required more people to lead a unit. Targeted purchases and induction of modern C4I elements have massively improved the situation in South MD, and similar changes will likely take place in other districts over the next decade. The recon issue was because 1) there were no UAVs in T.O. MRBdes, and 2) because a single recon company was insufficient. Since then the Grusha UAV has been procured in increasing numbers and while it's not nearly universally widespread, it's only a matter of time. Also the recon companies have been expanded into full-size recon btlns in each MRBde. Iirc tank brigades still have companies, but they're much smaller and more compact units to begin with. The same thing happened with the logistical component, where MTO companies have been expanded into full sized btlns, per brigade.

housing shortages persist and were cited as one reason for Serdyukov’s dismissal.

The housing issue isn't so much one of shortages, as poor location for housing (which retired officers often decline to accept, opting to wait for a better choice now that it's become clear that more housing will be available). It also does not appear to be related to Serdyukov's dismissal. The huge corruption scandals surrounding OAO Oboronservis, which handles the outsourcing for the Russian Army is.

The more fundamental mistake is that the article seems to think that Serdyukov is the man behind the reforms. This is simply not the case. The reforms were an amalgam of late-Soviet plans for mobile brigades, and the tactical experience gained since then in the two Chechen wars, and in Georgia, with the brigades being almost exact copies of the common battalion and regimental tactical groupings used during those conflicts. The reforms were planned and carried out by a group of high-ranking officers from General HQ. Serdyukov was there to carefully monitor and oversee spending. His appointment was necessary because prior to that the defense budget rose drastically, but the money literally disappeared into the black hole that was the Russian military. He was a civilian with experience in managing finances, and his real task was to make sure money was being spent on properly.

The individual reform initiatives seemed logical, but the overall framework was nebulous. The MOD was never able to publish a white paper describing Russia’s military reforms and their underlying logic and goals.

In part, this opaque approach may have been a deliberate tactic to decrease resistance by concealing the full extent of the reform program, but the resulting confusion led many officers to wonder whether their civilian leaders really had a well-thought out plan or were just experimenting through trial-and-error techniques.

There was indeed an initial comprehensive reform plan. The problem was that the plan turned out to be flawed. This is quite unsurprising given the extremely muddled state of affairs inside the Russian military at the time, and the abysmal state of Russian military science. The ad hoc initiatives that the article references were essentially course corrections implemented during the reform in order to adjust to the realities. In other words it wasn't so much intentional trial and error, as an attempt to adjust on the fly. The reforms being incredibly massive were only possible if carried out swiftly, given the tremendous inertia and bureaucratic resistance in Russian in general, and the Russian military in particular.

Putin’s stated reason for removing Serdyukov was to allow an investigation to proceed unhindered regarding whether Serdyukov and favored subordinates were exploiting the large-scale sale of MOD property to acquire valuable state property at unreasonably low prices.

This process was reminiscent of the worst abuses of the Yeltsin years, when the presidential administration would misuse privatization to reward favored entrepreneurs with ownership of Soviet-era corporations for a pittance.

Obvious and unsurprising. However on some level almost unavoidable. The military was, and still is, sitting on huge property, stockpiles of weapons, land, structures, etc. that are plain useless, and the maintenance of which eats funds. It needed to be sold off, and given the state of affairs in Russia there was no way that wasn't going to be accompanied by corruption. Given that it's unclear on what level the corruption occurred (quantity wise) it's hard to say whether it could have been reduced significantly.

Shortly before retiring, Serdyukov confirmed that the MOD would have to retain conscription indefinitely since the government could not afford to employ only more-expensive professional soldiers serving under contract. Instead, the MOD will hire contractors for positions that require either special skills and training or a long-term service commitment, such as for members for the Navy, Strategic Missile Forces, and other military specialties requiring the skilled and highly readily professionals, but the Army will consist almost entirely of conscripted soldiers. The major exception is the newly restructured Russian noncommissioned officer (NCO) corps, which remains a work in progress.

This piece is downright inaccurate, possibly out of date. As it stands the plan is for contract soldiers to massively outnumber conscripts by 2020. Current plans call for an extra 50 000 contract soldiers every year, while the numbers of conscripts will decline naturally as conscription age enters into the demographic hole of the early 90s. If current plans are realized there will be 425 000 contract soldiers by 2017, with something like 170 000 conscripts.

The MOD’s plans for the number of NCOs and other professional contract soldiers they wanted to assist the regular officers have constantly changed. In the 1990s, the civilian economy was bad, so the military could recruit large numbers of good people at a modest cost.

Contract service during the 90s was minimal. Current contract service can be traced back to the Second Chechen War, followed by the Federal Targeted Program of 2003-2008.

The poor quality of conscripts means that “combat-ready” mobile brigades in reality are capable of deploying only several tactical battalion groups—perhaps some 10,000 men—to a conflict zone. The Russian Army’s maneuverability is constrained by the lack of common equipment used by mobile brigades stored in various central storage bases. Ideally, after being transported by aircraft to their place of embarkation, troops should receive familiar equipment from a base not far from a destination point.

As it stands that concept seems to have been abandoned. Units will deploy with their own stock of gear to any conflict zone. There seems to be some attempt to improve strategic mobility by investing more heavily into heavy lift and transport aircraft. However it remains to be seen whether this will solve the issue. As it stands each major theater has it's own grouping of forces that are expected to fight the opening phases of a local conflict on their own.

In other words this article seems very confused and out of date, not to mention in some cases inaccurate historically. However it's right about it's main thesis, and it's that the new structure has yet to be optimized or sufficiently battle-tested. Changes will continue, and over the next decade lots of new units will be formed, as the increasing number of contract personnel will increase total numbers of service members.

 

[Beatmaster]

First of all i wonder where the question comes from?
I mean how can Russia not be a major player?

We all talk about army and power projection to measure the power a nation has, but look at what Russia has been doing for the past 25 years?
They did come from a very long way after the collapse, and without much trouble they always remained in a global noticeable position where it could do what it wanted without having Uncle Sam breathing down their necks.

It is true that Russia failed (In western eyes) in many ways but on the other hand as being a EU based person i can say that the influence of Russia is anything but small.
Look at their incredible resources and economic efforts the past years and its clearly that they are shifting from a military influence to a more economic influence which is IMO rather effective.
And even if Russia is importing weapons from foreign partners, it proves that they recognize that outside the Russian industry there are solid weapon systems who are on par with their demands and a hell of a lot cheaper then maintaining their own industry. So who is not buying their stuff abroad?.

My point is it really does not matter much if Russia is a military super power, or a economic super power or even a regional power for that matter, their size as a nation, their veto right in the UN and their sway over the EU and to a smaller extend to US and Chinese/India's politics should put them right into the spot of being a super power.
I am not a hard line PRO west or PRO east but there are a few names on the world stage who always have been and will be labeled as a "power" and Russia has been and always will be on of those names.
That said gives time the economic importance of Russia will rise a lot specially with a power hungry EU and China as neighbors, do not forget the natural resources that Russia has, and their rather low prizes compared to western counterparts while still being regarded as technological good will surely enable Russia to do anything they wish to do, if time and planning is being taken care of.
Short said they might look a bit shaky and they do have loads of internal issues, but economic speaking they can and probably will draw enough money and "power" in time to rebuild their army and other aspects to return to a more visible "power" status, afteral with the economy cooling down even more in the west it really leaves a big gap that they might be able to jump into.
And this would seriously boost Russia's longterm efforts.

So let me google that question for you: Is Russia a super power? Hell yes.

 

[STURM]

First of all i wonder where the question comes from?

My thoughts exactly ! [no offence to the person who started the thread]

My personal opinion is that as long as Russia has enough nukes to take out the world and as long as the only superpower and NATO pay extreme attention and concern to what Russia is doing, then YES Russia is a major 'player'.

 

[Bonza]

The question came from a fraud claiming to be an intelligence officer who was going around the forums asking the kind of questions you'd expect from a teenager. Thus, he is no longer with us.

 

[Beatmaster]

The question came from a fraud claiming to be an intelligence officer who was going around the forums asking the kind of questions you'd expect from a teenager. Thus, he is no longer with us.

So you guys did ur clean up round then? Well nice.
Frauds have one way to go and thats the exit way.:sniper

 

[wsb05]

Russia is a big uncertainty at present but with whichever scenario Russia will definitely be a regional power.
1- Gas influence on EU and CIS countries
2- Eurasian economic integrations.. etc.
3- Strong military

Not a global power: (compared to US and major players)
1- Small overall economy.
2- Small population.
3- Inability to project military power and sustain deployment in conflict areas oversees.
4- Too many problems to deal with before going global (NATO push, terrorism, breakaway regions and China's rise).
5- With the fall of the soviets Russia does not have an idea to fight for globally nor to draw supporters for