IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  « < 15 16 17 18 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Military talks, 2010 +
Jet02
post 18 Mar 2017, 15:33
Post #401



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 September 2016
From: Malaysia
Member No.: 13185



QUOTE (Ally @ 18 Mar 2017, 20:26) *
You must be talking about the Pugachev's Cobra, the air maneuver devised during the Soviets attempt at conquering Afghanistan which was meant to aid against MANPADS everywhere. I do not know, my specialty is not air combat but I supposed these days a AMRAAM flying up your tail would just work alright. Also, depending on the battlespace certain maneuvers simple cannot be executed. High intensity conflict a là potential WW3 Europe would necessitate any and all combat airplanes to stick closely to the ground in order to avoid air radars and systems like S-400 and Patriot everywhere.


No... i'm talking about something like this.

https://youtu.be/XtXPQNW2HqE

And isn't the cobra used mainly against pursuing aircraft?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 30 Mar 2017, 22:16
Post #402



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



Russia takes another step towards Cold War 2.0:

Russia builds an 'unstoppable' 4,600mph cruise missile that could sink the Royal Navy's new £6bn aircraft carriers with a single strike

'UNSTOPPABLE MISSILE' Russia develops hypersonic 4,600mph missiles which can destroy Royal Navy’s top warships in single strike

The West defenseless against Russian Zircon missiles

The Russian government had warned the West for some time that it would take "asymmetric measures" in response to the warmongering policy of the West; the new Zircon is one of them.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 5 Apr 2017, 17:47
Post #403



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 30 Mar 2017, 17:16) *
Russia takes another step towards Cold War 2.0:




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TimeBurner
post 5 Apr 2017, 18:04
Post #404


Motherland's Finest
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1043
Joined: 10 May 2014
Member No.: 10454
"We have watched, we have waited, now... we act!"



Oh look! it's me.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 5 Apr 2017, 18:18
Post #405



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Star_Abraham @ 5 Apr 2017, 13:47) *

Thank you for contributing by exposing your military expertise to this discussion.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NikCaputnic
post 5 Apr 2017, 18:29
Post #406



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 3 November 2015
From: Near to the Heart of my Motherland
Member No.: 12315



QUOTE (Star_Abraham @ 5 Apr 2017, 19:47) *

That is magnificent!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
{Lads}RikerZZZ
post 5 Apr 2017, 23:24
Post #407


Certified Shitposter
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2404
Joined: 30 December 2013
From: Straya'
Member No.: 10248
pls join my games im lonely =c



once again star sums it up perfectly again.
Russia =/= stronk


--------------------

Many thanks to IvanMRM for my avatar and Star for drawing my epic signature. You guys rock!
Join our Discord Server for a great community and plenty of games and memes!
Also, check out our ROTR - Fan group on Facebook.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 6 Apr 2017, 15:02
Post #408



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5868
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Very neat caricature and I feel it captures the point. Yes the situation between NATO and Russia does strongly resemble the Cold War and it can be rightfully argued that it is, in a way, a continuation of it because the fundamental antagonism between the two sides has not been resolved. Russia's massive military modernisation is to be understood in that same context, but it bears a similar problem as it did during the 'original' Cold War: At the end of the day, Russia's economy, which is primarily built around raw resource/fuel exports, lacks diversification and is therefore extremely vulnerable to changing market prices. In the short term, we can expect the United States to become even more of an energy exporter which will cut into Russia's profits whilst in the long-term alternative sources will result in a slow de-emphasising of fossil fuels, which will be the point where Russia will suffer ever deminishing returns for their most important export. When the cashflow dries up, the sub-par industry, infrastructure and social security systems will crumble, and eventually the armed forces will as well.

Right now, I already see a massive problem in the fact that Russia tries to modernise its military through several expensive, competing and in some cases redundant procurement projects. They want to deploy over 2.000 Armata tanks by the end of this decade and until then, burn some more money in their efforts to modernise T-72s and T-80s to the level of T-90s, whilst also upgrading their existing T-90s because why the hell not. Along with the new tank, there's a whole family of proposed specialist vehicles to be derived from it and fielded in meaningful numbers as well. Then there's the Kurganets and Bumerang, which are supposed to replace the old BMPs, MT-LBs, BTRs, BMDs and countless variants thereof as well, whilst in the meantime, the Airborne forces are producing a new BMD-4 and turretless APC version thereof because that's totally worth it. Couple this with new air defence systems and cruise/ballistic missiles and you already have an ambitious procurement list that would probably break the back of most countries with better economies, but wait, there's more. The Air Force also wants a new MiG, it wants to procure a meaningful number of PAKFAs, it apparently wants a stealth fighter, it wants not one but two new interceptors, four types of transport planes, a new ground attack plane and a next generation bomber. Finally, the Navy also wants a bunch of new ships, including such things as a new aircraft carrier and amphibious assault ships which totally fit into the operational doctrine of what is still, traditionally, a land power whose main interest is the countries on its own periphery. And Russia will be trying to finance all this and more with a GDP smaller than Italy's, whilst simultaneously dealing with a whole laundry list of internal issues that may threaten its very territorial survival in the future. And so long as the hot shooting war doesn't break out, all those CGI concepts and unstoppable cruise missiles won't do anything to mitigate that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 6 Apr 2017, 16:47
Post #409



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



Very precise your comment MARS

It should be noted, however, that Russia has bet in the last decades on a globalized model proposed by the West, mainly by the United States and the EU, where Russia competed for markets that it had access mainly supplying raw materials (steel, coal, oil, etc.); in this model (liberal market) the West has not been able to compete with rising powers and with Russia itself, it is enough to observe the growth and relevance of the BRICS in the world economy in the last decades; there has been a profound shift in global geopolitics when Russia was unilaterally excluded from the Western market, where they pushed the country into closed markets in Asia and Eastern Europe (where currently trying to cut the dependencies of russia).

So we are faced with a fundamental question: "Who will supply the lack of Russia in Eastern Europe (gas, oil, machinery, technology, etc.) in a cost-effective manner? At some point this may happen (it will take decades), so Russia will indeed be against the wall, but the country's government will not passively watch for a forced change of economic equilibrium, it is already betting on a "turnaround", this explains why the alliance with China and the heavy investment in the military;

And the key response is in the China Sea and the "New Silk Route" where Russia will simply dribble the blockade of economic sanctions by transferring its commodities to China and then reaching the markets of Europe (for this reason the United States does not allow China to control the sea and guarantee the flow of goods to Africa). Will Europe also be able to sustain itself economically without China, or the United States? With this perspective in mind it becomes clear that Putin understands that what is at stake now and keep the trade route politically aligned at all costs since the West has "changed the game."



So I think "who's losing the Cold War?" Can the United States compete with the logistics of Russia and China? The United States can supply Europe alone? The United States has the strength to cut off the sea and land routes of Russia and China (see case of Ukraine and Syria)? Can the United States guarantee the security of Europe (its consumer market and main partner)?

If the "New Silk Road" created by the eastern powers is contested, new wars are likely to occur, this is now the "game of the East" and no longer the "game of the West", either by political imposition or by force...

On military aspects Russia is the flagship of the new route: Russia is selling to all the countries that are part of the new commercial route AA missile systems without similar in the world, at the same time also develops technically superior missiles for attack, so imagine a decade from now if nothing changes: You can only defend yourself from Russia by buying the equipment of Russia itself (anti-missile system). After all, who gives the cards (West or East)?


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 6 Apr 2017, 16:52
Post #410



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (MARS @ 6 Apr 2017, 10:02) *
Very neat caricature and I feel it captures the point. Yes the situation between NATO and Russia does strongly.... And so long as the hot shooting war doesn't break out, all those CGI concepts and unstoppable cruise missiles won't do anything to mitigate that.


Someone got the context spot-on. Thanks for the reply.



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 5 Apr 2017, 13:18) *
Thank you for contributing by exposing your military expertise to this discussion.





QUOTE ({Lads}RikerZZZ @ 5 Apr 2017, 18:24) *
once again star sums it up perfectly again.
Russia =/= stronk





--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 6 Apr 2017, 16:57
Post #411



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



^ Funny, I wanted to discuss military equipment, not politics on this topic, but you took the discussion to the sphere of politics, so we can discuss this, instead of posting just something abstract from reality (a satire), you could present more complex sources, ideas or refelxions to explain your opinion. Nothing personal, my friend.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 6 Apr 2017, 17:09
Post #412



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 6 Apr 2017, 11:57) *
^ Funny, I wanted to discuss military equipment, not politics on this topic, but you took the discussion to the sphere of politics, so we can discuss this, instead of posting just something abstract from reality (a satire), you could present more complex sources, ideas or refelxions to explain your opinion. Nothing personal, my friend.


The Sun and .RU named websites are 10/10 sources.

Let's talk about the space ships in my own google maps pic, and how they gonna eat Moscow like delicious chocolate.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GeneralAziz
post 6 Apr 2017, 17:19
Post #413



Group Icon

Group: Donator
Posts: 201
Joined: 25 January 2016
From: Kuwait
Member No.: 12539



Star you should make an ROTR series with your drawing skills thats awesome XD!!!
But make me the hero of the series.


--------------------
Xeres :
medium level players cant last vs a high level player for more than 10 min, and can't replicate the "OP" scenarios yourselves... but still have the "time" to come here and post balance changes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
(USA)Bruce
post 6 Apr 2017, 17:32
Post #414


The Forums American Hotshot Flyboy
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 2734
Joined: 22 November 2012
From: The foundation of modern freedom and Liberty;United States of America.
Member No.: 9500



Fun and games aside, If there was a way to stop the missle I'd like to know.Russia probably doesnt have the numbers to sink an entire fleet at the current momment but it would still be a shame to take out a carrier.

Anywhom you guys hear of this?
The american stealth destoyers rounds costs too much

800k a pieace does sound pricey for the navy, not the airforce maybe but definately for the navy


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 6 Apr 2017, 17:36
Post #415



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE ((USA)Bruce @ 6 Apr 2017, 12:32) *
Fun and games aside, If there was a way to stop the missle I'd like to know.Russia probably doesnt have the numbers to sink an entire fleet at the current momment but it would still be a shame to take out a carrier.

Anywhom you guys hear of this?
The american stealth destoyers rounds costs too much

800k a pieace does sound pricey for the navy, not the airforce maybe but definately for the navy




Lasers?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 6 Apr 2017, 18:22
Post #416



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5868
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Going to do what is usually a faux-pas - quoting a huge image - to help visualise the point:

QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 6 Apr 2017, 17:47) *


The problem with this new Silk Road, both on land and at sea, is that it has too many 'moving parts' in it. Let's look at the land route. It goes through western China, which is a remote region with sub-par infrastructure and an active separatist movement that's causing problems to the central government. It then goes through Kazakhstan, Aldastan Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, again remote places with bad infrastructure and virtually non-existant industry, who would be nothing but transit countries for goods to travel through without actually processing any of them themselves. These Central Asian countries are also just one premature dictator death away from falling into chaos and the variety of ethnic groups and religions would make it easy for a, let's say, creative intelligence agency to disrupt things, if we assume enough malicious intent. Then it goes through Iran which can be considered a fairly reliable ally for Russia and China, but it goes on through the mountainous borderland between it, Iraq and Turkey, which is inhabited by the Kurds and therefore another potential area for conflict and disruptions. Turkey itself is still ambiguous, as it is still a NATO member and EU membership candidate, but recent events paint the picture that it either sees itself more in the 'eastern' camp or as a middleman between the two. In any case, it's another place whose political future and stability is uncertain. And finally after all that, the land route actually reaches the European markets and it does so only if the multitude of nations involved actually manage to develop and safeguard all the roads, railways and pipelines they still need to build across the entire distance.

Now let's look at the maritime side of things. We start out on the southern coast of China, then stick close to or even pass through Vietnamese waters. Vietnam isn't on particularly good terms with China and could make this difficult. Outside Singapore, we pass through the Strait of Malacca which is a chokepoint where you absolutely positively have to defend the sea route against pirates. Then we connect towards India which, traditionally, is also not on very good terms with China, as it always maintained ties with Russia and the United States instead. Curiously Pakistan, which can actually be considered a close partner of China, isn't connected with the sea route in any way. Instead, we dash right over to eastern Africa - again, not a region known for its stability - and move up around the Horn of Africa past the pirate paradise that is Somalia and through another chokepoint outside what is currently war-torn Yemen, before we pass through the Red Sea and another chokepoint, the Suez Canal. As with the land route, control of the sea route requires very strong security partnerships with a number of countries that are either not reliable or openly opposed to growing Chinese influence. On top of that, it'd require a massive buildup of the Chinese navy which is a big, long-term investment that would only be possible if the economy remains strong enough to allow it. However, the problem I see with this entire concept is that it requires so much diplomacy, so much military build-up, so much coordination with so many unreliable, unstable or unwilling partners, and so much infrastructure work (hence, moving parts) that it may very well not be finished in time before Russia and China start suffering badly from their internal problems (demographics, sub-par industry and infrastructure, systemic corruption and inefficiency, internal conflict over ethno-religious issues, environmental hazards).

In the meantime, the United States already have the most powerful, most expeditionary capable military ever seen, a navy that can project effective force to any ocean, to any chokepoint, to any port around the world and a robust system of existing military and trade alliances to further build on. Sea trade is and will likely remain the most cost-efficient means of transporting large amounts of goods across vast distances and the US can do so with ease across both oceans. It is currently in an objectively stronger position than anyone else and will continue to expand on that advantage whilst everybody else, both allies and adversaries, will continue playing catch-up, possibly achieving some progress along the way but the investment and commitment required is so vast that other problems may easily undo the entire project before it comes anywhere near fruition.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 6 Apr 2017, 22:21
Post #417



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1830
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (MARS @ 6 Apr 2017, 20:22) *
Going to do what is usually a faux-pas - quoting a huge image - to help visualise the point:



The problem with this new Silk Road, both on land and at sea, is that it has too many 'moving parts' in it. Let's look at the land route.<...>


The problem with land part of this aforementioned "silk route" is, essentially, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 6 Apr 2017, 22:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3rdShockArmy
post 6 Apr 2017, 23:43
Post #418


Chat Nick
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 797
Joined: 12 April 2015
From: Serbia
Member No.: 11096
If you ever decide to invade Russia, for the love of God, bring some warm clothes. We don't want you to blame the "evil Russian winter" when you get crushed, like everyone else who tried.



Too be honest, although I would agree with Mars most of the time, in this case I beg to disagree. I few years back, I read two or three articles which were about Russia and its "demise" in the next couple of decades. All were quite non-biased, based on solid facts. One was from 1993, and the other two were from 1998 and 2001. All of these focused on Russia's "demographic spiral downward, crumbling economy, rampant crime and so on". Still, Russian economy is better now than it ever was before (Russia exceeded its 1990 threshold in 2007 and continued growing ever since), the demographic situation is finally stabilized and its military is still in firm second place almost on par with the US, at least according to Global Firepower, even without nukes. The simple fact is, although Russia is experiencing problems, although it might not modernize all of its military on time, it will always be at least a great power. One of the reasons why Russia always won against invaders is partially due to all of them underestimating its military power (please don't get me started on the whole "General Winter" BS). I agree that the Russian economy at the moment is experiencing difficulties, I still wouldn't call it a giant gas station, because Russia also has strong heavy industry and is a premier arms exporter. They have the technology, the resources and the military might to be one of a handful of the truly independent countries in the world. And don't forget one simple fact - along with the US, it is still the only country in the world that has the power to make everyone else disappear in half an hour.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 6 Apr 2017, 23:45


--------------------
Oh Lord, have mercy, for I am unworthy!

Air war in Europe

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 7 Apr 2017, 0:05
Post #419



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (3rdShockArmy @ 6 Apr 2017, 18:43) *
Too be honest, although I would agree with Mars most of the time, in this case I beg to disagree. I few years back, I read two or three articles which were about Russia and its "demise" in the next couple of decades......



Hardly on topic, if this is supposed to be a reply to MARS.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 7 Apr 2017, 3:19
Post #420



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Star_Abraham @ 6 Apr 2017, 13:09) *
The Sun and .RU named websites are 10/10 sources.

I could cite to you other sources of information, to quote articles whose American politicians cite the obsolescence of the current arsenal in the face of the modernity of the new Russian equipment; US military warning the congress and criticizing NATO about the military disparity with Russia, but I will not do it because you seem to be skeptical of everything that goes against the establishment, and there is no argument against it. And also because any Russian source of information is better or equal to a Western source of information, whether you like it or not...
------


I understand your statements MARS and in fact are plausible points since the route involves radicalized states and recent democracies in some cases, however it must be taken into account that to sustain the plan there are tempting counter-proposals by Russia and especially by China, such as credit consents, market opening and greater economic and political integration; also realize that the ground has already been planned (mainly for land routes) with the creation of CIS by Russia and the Shanghai Organization by China that must be politically and militarily shielded against "colored revolutions" or political instabilities (which will inevitably occur); in this wake of events we see Russia and China influencing governments that were once aligned with the West (Greece, Italy, Turkey, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) changing the global order of the last century; if this is a trend as it seems the West will continue to dissolve into something different from what we know today, because nations will simply orb to the side that offers more opportunities and advantages.

From the military point of view, the United States will continue to be the major military power in the world but will lose as it has been losing its soft power over the years to Russians, Chinese, Indians and so on, because they simply can no longer deny or ban these countries from the globalist system that they themselves have boosted for decades; but will still have a powerful military rhetoric and a very efficient navy, but will they have enough persuasion to motivate their allies? Another point is that NATO in the 20th century format is no longer able to exist since the commitment of the member states is not the same and the United States on Trump's administration has been shown to be intolerant in this respect and Europe gradually feels if were used in a political game where only Europe itself can lose.

In Africa, China intends to create peacekeeping expeditionary forces to secure its business, but the problem is still the China Sea, which the government does not give up because it does not trust in the United States, which in turn should not release the sea traffic to China for obvious reasons (I can not imagine the outcome of this).


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 7 Apr 2017, 15:02
Post #421



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 6 Apr 2017, 22:19) *
I could cite to you other sources of information, to quote articles whose American politicians cite the obsolescence of the current arsenal in the face of the modernity of the new Russian equipment; US military warning......



I wonder why Ruskiiboos like to believe that America will magically pause and not progress while the rest of the world will happily do it's things.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 7 Apr 2017, 15:10
Post #422



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2636
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Star_Abraham @ 7 Apr 2017, 11:02) *
I wonder why Ruskiiboos like to believe that America will magically pause and not progress while the rest of the world will happily do it's things.

Who believes that? The fact is that the other nations have grown up also, altering the American supremacy, what is the problem in admitting this? The world is not as it was before, and this is the natural process of things.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 7 Apr 2017, 15:41
Post #423



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 7 Apr 2017, 10:10) *
Who believes that? The fact is that the other nations have grown up also, altering the American supremacy, what is the problem in admitting this? The world is not as it was before, and this is the natural process of things.


mostly pullin' your leg, but...


you seem rather confident about the future of the countries you're talking about.
Just as America might be less of an influence in the world, so can other countries if their problems continue, and let's be honest here, China, India, Russia, and any other example of a nation that's had people for thousands of years, have more issues that can put them "behind" far more easily in the near or long term future than what you can expect with a country like the US (or whatever becomes of it with Canada)

We're mostly speaking speculation, because hey, many would have believed the USSR was bound for centuries of prosperity... but we know how that ended.

Also this is silly polititalk, might as well discuss the ability of the west to twist that trend 180 and go full containment on the east, because It's not like it's impossible. : P


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 7 Apr 2017, 15:41
Post #424



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5868
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (3rdShockArmy @ 7 Apr 2017, 0:43) *
Too be honest, although I would agree with Mars most of the time, in this case I beg to disagree. I few years back, I read two or three articles which were about Russia and its "demise" in the next couple of decades. All were quite non-biased, based on solid facts. One was from 1993, and the other two were from 1998 and 2001. All of these focused on Russia's "demographic spiral downward, crumbling economy, rampant crime and so on". Still, Russian economy is better now than it ever was before (Russia exceeded its 1990 threshold in 2007 and continued growing ever since), the demographic situation is finally stabilized and its military is still in firm second place almost on par with the US, at least according to Global Firepower, even without nukes. The simple fact is, although Russia is experiencing problems, although it might not modernize all of its military on time, it will always be at least a great power. One of the reasons why Russia always won against invaders is partially due to all of them underestimating its military power (please don't get me started on the whole "General Winter" BS). I agree that the Russian economy at the moment is experiencing difficulties, I still wouldn't call it a giant gas station, because Russia also has strong heavy industry and is a premier arms exporter. They have the technology, the resources and the military might to be one of a handful of the truly independent countries in the world. And don't forget one simple fact - along with the US, it is still the only country in the world that has the power to make everyone else disappear in half an hour.


I wasn't intending to underrate or wish any deliberate ill upon Russia, just to be clear. However, at least from what I understand, the demographic situation is still kind of ambivalent. I am aware that the birth rates have recently stabilised again, but due to the nature of Russia, we may have to go a little deeper than that. The birth rates of the Russian Federation may have indeed increased, but from what I can gather (latest data from 2010, would greatly appreciate new information if available), a lot of that growth was contributed by the ethnic minorities in the various federal subjects, whilst ethnic Russians seemingly remain in demographic decline by comparison. Again, numbers from 2010, but under the assumption that this is the ongoing trend, we're looking at a situation where the various ethnic minorities within the Federation are becoming more numerous. Considering that some of these minorities have some pretty negative memories of how they were treated during the last century, not to mention those within conflict regions in the Caucasus, it stands to reason that, if the central government were weakened due to economic decline, political turmoil, whathaveyou, separatism might experience a surge. There is a reason why Russia considers separatism to be one of the most important strategic threats, because Chechnya is by far not the only place in this vast country where there is a natural potential for it. I'm not saying this will happen, but it is certainly a possibility.

Another thing worth remembering is that people born since the recent demographic turn-around are still toddlers at this current time. They can only truly contribute to the prosperity and survival of the state once they're grown up and that also requires them to be educated with relevant skills and a vested interest in the prosperity and survival of the state in its current form. Right now, they are little children that wouldn't be able to make any difference if the next political crisis were to take its toll on Russia before it can solve its deep, structural problems, because the tangible benefits of a demographic turn-around only truly enter effect about two decades later.

I also didn't flat-out say that the Silk Road will fail, but as it stands, I see a lot of challenges along the way, which also goes for the future of Russia and China themselves. Finally, one more thing I want to point out is that the belief that Russia 'will always be at least a great power' is oversimplified. There is no such thing as an 'always will be' in history and a mere look at the history of the 20th century shows that conventional wisdom and mainstream assumptions about the future were pretty much always wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Star_Abraham
post 7 Apr 2017, 15:54
Post #425



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 1 August 2016
Member No.: 13091







--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 15 16 17 18 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18 October 2018 - 3:23