Russia isn't actually that much better of than Latin America. Last I checked, Russia had a GDP/capita of 9000$, and Brazil some 7000$. Brazil also has a slightly larger nominal total GDP (1300 billion as opposed to 1280 billion for Russia). Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world, so don't underestimate yourself!
Anyway, some more rough GDP/capital numbers for comparison:
Brazil - 7,000$/capita
Russia - 9,000$/capita
Italy - 35,000$/capita
France - 40,000$/capita
Germany - 40,000$/capita
UK - 45,000$/capita
US - 45,000$/capita
Russia also suffers from major institutional problems, like wide-spread corruption; opaque and sometimes inefficient financial and capital markets; the education system, of world-class quality during the Soviet era, was hit hard by the breakdown of the Union as many teachers found themselves with little or no salary, creating a massive brain-drain. The basic educational system is still good, but it would need serious reforms to bring it back to western standards; so far little seems to be forthcoming.
First, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I'm not from Brazil. I'm just aware that Brazil has a very good economy by Latin American standards.
Now, on to the main thing: you do make a strong argument. I've checked the numbers myself, and from what I gather (I do physics not economics) your argument is sound. Also, I've taken the time to read on the major institutional problems you mention (Sberbank, financial pyramids[gasp!]) and things seem pretty friggin' ugly right now. I've been witness myself of a bit of the consequences of the fall of the education system since there soviet breakaway. There are actually Russians in my university; they are damn happy there (must be the food), but they have spoken about the consequences of the soviet breakaway and how it affected them. Those people are doctors and somesuch and have had to leave their homes because they were not being adequately paid (add to that the loss of status) what a person of their studies should have been paid. Just surviving didn't seem to do it for them.
But, I do have to disagree with your final comment of ?so far little seems to be forthcoming.?
While inflation has remained a problem for the russkies since always(it's kind of going up as of now), somehow, the economy seems to actually be getting better(I didn't really know this). During Putin's tenure in there, the Industry grew by 75%, somehow investments increased 125%, even agricultural production increased as well. People's income more than doubled and the average joe(or average van?) salary increased eightfold from $80 to $640. The number of people living below the poverty line also decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.
*Now, I'll quote MSNBC on this:
?Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold. A new middle class is buying foreign cars and taking exotic vacations on the Red Sea. ?
Not to bad, I'd say. Here in México is the opposite. Every year things look uglier for us. I'm not sure how accurate they are being with the whole middleclass thing, but things do seem to me like they are progressing.
*Now, I'll quote Al Jazeera(please, don't flame Al Jazeera. I don't see why they would be lying on this):
?Economic growth has risen from 7 per cent in 2006 to 8.1 per cent in 2007, and the average monthly salary has risen from $80 to $640 over the course of Putin's two terms as president. ?
Also, expenditure on higher education is on the rise, along with a civilian aerospace industry slowly making a comeback(they did develop the Sukhoi super jet). By 2020 ish, mama Russia will be weel on its way to be a developed country.
My point being that Russia right now is hardly an economic superpower, but they do seem to be taking things seriously, and things seem to be progressing.
I should probably restate that all my arguments are based on this being a conventional war.
I should also probably restate my position somewhat: obviously Russia has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, but it's still in a state of disarray, and could, in my opinion, not win a conventional, full-scale war against NATO. Her navy would obviously be outnumbered and outgunned; her air force hasn't seen sufficient modernisation since Soviet times to be truly competitive; and her land forces suffer from enormous institutional deficiencies.
However, they can obviously cause a lot of damage if Putin suddenly went berserk and sent out all his bombers and subs to start blowing up civilian targets; I never said any conflict would be easy or bloodless. Nevertheless, I do not see them standing up to the combined power of NATO in a prolonged conflict.
Well, yeah. We agree on that. But the point was in something close to a real world conflict. Somehow I don't see the russkies, or NATO for that manner, fighting anything with the word ?conventional? stamped on its sides.
I don't see NATO just fighting the russkies. Suppose they do a blitzkrieg on mama Russia, and suppose they can't breach Russia's defenses without nuking it because then that would involve trying to take ground control, then what? Russia could pretty much wall itself and missile-up everything that goes past a perimeter. What would NATO do? The main players in there would have to be Canada, France, Germany, the U.K and the U.S. Of those, the U.S and Canada would be the ones that would do better, but for the rest of NATO, the smaller countries, it would be a pain to manage without russian oil exports, and that in turn would put pressure in other countries (like mine, damnit) to chalk up production because now we'd have to keep even more bellies filled than the usual. Oil prices would soar through the roof because you know, ?you need to keep pumpin' those bombs, son!? and let's not forget one thing...oil IS running out.
Oh, I almost forgot: It's not Putin but Medvedev that would go ?berzerk.?(can you spot the metaphor?)
There is one thing I really don't understand. What do people exactly mean with ?the combined power of NATO?? I've checked the member countries, and well, they're not the largest bunch:
Population(in PEOPLE):
Belgium---10,584,534
Canada---33,358,000
Denmark---5,475,791
France---64,473,140
Iceland---316,252(Ouch! The city where I live, Hermosillo, has more people)
Italy---59,619,290
Luxembourg---480,222
Netherlands---16,408,557
Norway---4,777,100
Portugal---10,584,344
United Kingdom---60,975,000
United States---304,977,000
Greece---11,216,708
Turkey---70,586,256
Germany---82,217,800
Spain---45,200,737
Czech Republic---10,403,136
Hungary---10,041,000
Poland---38,116,000
Bulgaria---7,640,238
Estonia---1,340,602
Latvia---2,270,700
Lithuania---3,369,600
Romania---22,246,862
Slovakia---5,379,455
Slovenia---2,023,358
VS
RUSSIA---142,008,838(and dropping!)
How many people are those small countries willing to lose to a long dragged out conflict?
I've also checked their armies, and to me, it wouldn't seem like many of them are that much better supplied than the Russian Army. Given, they are much, much better trained and more effective but then, we fall to the next question: how many of those countries can actually fend off shrapnel after shrapnel of missiles? Or mount effective countermeasures when the carpet bombing of nukes comes raining.
The approx. death tally of the bombing in Hiroshima is 140,000. That's more than one third of the population of Iceland or Luxembourg. And considering the new more ?appropriate? techniques of maximizing the potential of nukes fall on carpet bombing...well...
It seems to me that either they squash Russia ala attempted operation Barbarossa or they face a very dim future. Or at least the smaller member states of NATO do.
Also, the one problem I see with Russia is that the russkies don't seem too fond of making babies.
Obviously no-one in their right mind would actively seek to invade Russia. NATO couldn't occupy it, but that's immaterial to my point. The West has military superiority and that's all that matters - if the Russian armed forces would be defeated in a conflict, they do not pose a credible threat.
Unfortunately, while West might win the war it would be very, very difficult to win the peace. But if the only way Russia can defeat the West is to let herself be occupied first - well, then she poses no more of a threat than Iraq did to the US, no? ;-)
Well, yeah. But then how do you keep the russkies from walling themselves and ?chalking them missiles?? One thing is to traverse the waters of the weird free market economy that runs amok in the world, and another is to keep yourself walled because you can and live off of your own natural reserves. Russia is not Cuba, Russia is Russia, and it's huge.
I agree with you that the west has military superiority but, well, what good is it for, other than getting everyone into a very, very uncomfortable impasse?
Wars aren't cheap, but since the West is economically the more powerful party, they'd come up on top again.
As for the rest of the world: few countries have anything much to gain from supporting Russia, while many (especially China and India) would stand to loose a great deal from the economic upheavals such a war would cause. Iran (and Venezuela?) would be the only possible direct allies I can think of, and while Iran could invade Iraq and cause some local trouble she has zero power projection capabilities.
China might try to go after Taiwan, but certainly not much more, and even that's not too likely. Pakistan and India might clash over Kashmir but they would pretty much cancel each other out and have limited on any global conflict. The rest of the world is largely irrelevant.
Even if the units in Chechnya aren't exactly cream of the crop; or even representational of an average Russian unit, the fact that the things that happen there are actually allowed to happen point to structural deficiencies so huge as to boggle the mind. Simply put, no modern, professional army should act like the Russian army acts in Chechnya, and I'm not even talking about human rights abuses, I'm only talking about the conduct of military operations.
To summarise: I don't think anyone is underestimating Russia, and I hope I wasn't making the impression that I did (although I see how I could have). But we shouldn't overestimate the danger she poses either: she can't tank-blitz her way through Europe like she could during the Cold War. If it actually came to a conventional war, my bet would be on the West, but not without huge (huge!) sacrifices.
The fact that Russia can't present a credible, conventional threat to the West doesn't depend on whether or not Russia could be occupied, because by that point the West would already have proven its military superiority; but on whether or not Russia could defeat the West. In its present state, I don't see how it could.
As for the nuclear option, it's far simpler to compute - everyone dies.
Again, I agree with you, but I don't think anyone would fight a conventional war at this point, at least not on those magnitudes. This wouldn't bet like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Chechnya anymore. I'm certainly not over-estimating anything, as far as I see it. My concern lies on actual real world developments of such consequences.
I'll put it like this: First there were the trenches and basic air conflicts; then there were urban and air conflicts, I don't want to see what we're gonna get now. If one thing is for sure, is that it won't be like the previous two.
All your projections seem correct to me, but again, I just don't see this kind of conflict being in any way conventional. The russian army is indeed in no way to fight against any superpower in a conventional war as of now, but let's not forget the whole ?as of now.? From her up to 2020 is just enough time for the current administration to ?strongarm? the bureaucratic situation, getting the army running smoothly, and THEN, there's always the whole thing with the market of privately contracted armies which I tread lightly. ?If you can't train 'em rent 'em.? We live in a global market economy, anyways. By following your train of reasoning Russia could be, in twenty years, training an assortment of conscripts, volunteers, and working with a steady base of well paid ?professionals? that inked a pretty fair deal. Only then would mama Russia get into a "conventional conflict."
Thanks for replying, by the way.
