How can a country be this stupid. Instead of entering modern world without war and trade instead.
They consistently try to destroy everything possible.
Last week a major oil spill, radiation leak now. Previous radiation leak was in 2017 and everyone remembers Tsjernobyl, I hope.
Killing people abroad ( Germany, London)
Invading Ukraine, for saving their naval army
Threatening Europe with fly overs
Meddling with elections and spreading misinformation.
In the mean time, they think they found an ally in China. While Russia is getting pennies on the dollar, losing engineers to China and getting almost zero "promised investments" of China. Lol
They already lost to democratic Europe during the USSR. I'm just waiting till history repeats again somehow
You started a nationalistic flamewar and then perpetuated it. That is seriously not cool. It is not what this site is for. Please do not do this on HN again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
All true, however this is not specific to Russia only. It seems most large powers exhibit bullying behaviour.
USA is only a little better (making up WMD to go to war with Iraq, meddling with elections and democratic process in other countries, spying on allies, etc). Then we have China which is probably yet another category of international bully.
Sadly this is quite expected for global super powers...
Been thinking about that phrase "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is perhaps better as "power corrupts, absolute power writes the history books".
What about, power corrupts. But in a democracy it's hard to do it in the open ... For long :)
Perhaps you're forgetting that Russia is not a super power.
They can extract cheap oil and try to sell their military equipment.
We'll see how that pans out in the future, while Europe is slowly moving to green energy.
It's just nuts that they are throwing away the opportunity to correctly invest oil/gas money, before it's over.
Certainly not a superpower by these metrics. However, Russia does possess a vast number of WMDs which still puts it superpower category.
The thing about WMD's is that you only need one.
There's no use-case for it in the modern world, except the threat of using it.
Well what if your single one is taken offline? You need at least two, for redundancy :P
1 that is actually working then :p
I believe the grandparent is talking about second strike capability. The idea is to have enough that the enemy can't destroy it all before you have a chance to react. It is possible that one is enough or it maybe that ten is far from adequate. It depends on your threat model.
Not that any of this matters if our threat model includes an enemy who doesn't care if they get annihilated in the reprisal.
Disclaimer: I don't know about any of these things and they are just guesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike
Perhaps that is how you, and other rational people might feel about it, but the psychopaths in charge might very well feel differently, and probably do, if history is any indicator.
WMD's are wonderful for keeping other countries from attacking (but who wants to invade Russia?), but of little use for offensive purposes.
In terms of military tech, Russia is #2. Period. (fast approaching Chinese tho).
Their submarines and missiles are beyond our tech in the US in some aspects (hypersonic missles, Supercavitation torpedos).
I view them like the 3rd opponent in a starcraft 1v1v1 that got smashed early. They can't win the match, but they can decide the winner.
You have to be able to detect a submarine to fire on it and the US is a long way ahead of Russia when it comes to both quiet submarines and passive towed arrays.
In fact the original argument for the super-cavitating torpedo was one based on the premise of killing a submarine that already fired on you that you hadn't detected until it fired on you.
Russia has some showy tech (as you mentioned) but they lack in areas the US was ahead of them in decades ago.
In terms of technology there are other countries with more sophisticated defence capabilties where I am from is one (the UK) is one, much of the technology the Russians export is things they did under the USSR (which definitely was #2 in terms of military tech at that point).
When you get down to it though modern war is force projection and logistics and there no one touches the Americans.
> modern war is force projection
The Russians seem to have projected pretty effectively in Crimea and Syria. They’re not back to their peak but they’re trending up.
Crimea was on their doorstep and Assad already had strong ties to the Russians.
The US Navy and marines are the 2nd largest Air Force in the world, the first been the US airforce.
Russia is clearly a regional power but it is not a superpower except in nuclear weapons but it would cease to exist shortly after using those.
I’ve no dog in the fight, I’m British but the US military is vast, it’s so mind bogglingly big that it’s just taken for granted at this point.
In tonnage of combatants the US navy is larger than the next 8 combined, 6 of who are allies.
It’s crazy how over gunned they are tbh and they spend less as a share of GDP than the Russians do.
Their peek was during the USSR and guess what happened then.
Their focus on aerospace just got nullified by SpaceX.
Their oil/gas is neglecting the accelerated shift from Europe to green energy.
So yeah, they still have military which was way bigger in the past and didn't got them anywhere.
The Ukraine story is not over and I don't think you have any idea why it was done.
It's because their fleet would be rendered useless is they can't control Ukraine and the black sea. And they don't control Ukraine yet :)
They did however already suffer pretty big losses because of it.
Are you talking about their ships that would be rendered unusable by Ukraine in Europe? :)
What use does a fleet have, if it can't go out of the harbor. That would be a very weak position to start with in any game ;)
I wouldn't forget what happened in Japan, when Russia wanted to show their "superior" naval strength.
Russia is on the verge of a demographic collapse as the generation born after the fall of the soviet union comes of age. Their military which relies on huge manpower reserves will have a much smaller pool to draw upon, domestic consumption of consumer goods will shrink, and the costs of public welfare for the elderly is going to grow significantly relative to tax revenues. This demographic shift has already started, and its full effects will be felt this decade. Russia needs to make a lot of unreasonably bold plays right now while it still can if it is to secure its position in the coming years. Oil sales and advanced military technologies are not going to be super useful in the long run, but they reduce Russia's reliance on its large population which is the more imminent threat.
It's generally unsafe to assume counter-intuitive moves are irrational.
That's the thing. And Putin wants Russia to be seen as a world power, so it bullies like one.
Russia could be a great country if they were more democratic, open to criticism, were safer to both foreign and domestic investors and entrepreneurs, etc. They've got tons of resources, tons of opportunities, but I strongly believe their tradition of oppressive regimes (since the Mongols, really) is holding them back.
We also do fine w/ meddling w/ our own elections (Voter suppression) take for instance the fiasco that was the Louisville single precinct during a primary w/ 600k people coming out to vote in just two polling locations in the state.
Then we have our own leaders bullying us into believing masks are for 'wimps', which almost appears like they're trying to weaken Americans (literally make them sick and die) so Russia or China can just walk in and make us fascist and give them a good place in the new hierarchy.
Doesn't hurt that most of American's act like whiny brats and children who just learned the word No, and they do not like it.
This is a fantastically naive. The `modern world` you mention is far from innocent. The Iraq war, the ongoing intervention in Syria, Libya, the struggle to contain China, the whole farce with the Iran nuclear deal. It is absurd you mention the 'modern world' as an absolute positive when that modern world lead by the US caused the death of 500K+ lives in the middle east (Iraq civil war plus ISIS). What is happening with Russia, Europe and China is far more complex and intriguing than your black and white, good vs evil assessment. History is not over yet.
Nothing is perfect. But my statement that "war is made redundant by global trade", still remains.
The problem is that some countries ( eg. China) are not playing by the same rules and limiting exposure to downsides of global trade ( by protectionism) that they still do stupid things ( eg. The problems between China and India currently).
Both countries are not already in a war, because they are trading and it would hurt both economies. It's even mentioned in a recent article of the current conflict.
I'll give you another POV and that is that the UN is pretty new ( 20 years) and the biggest positive change in the last century. There are problems ofc, but that doesn't undermine my statement.
The second biggest change was the fall of the USSR for more democracy. And Russia is still struggling with this after 30 years.
>UN is pretty new ( 20 years)
The UN was established in 1945...you know after that 2. World-war.
>And Russia is still struggling with this after 30 years
Yes, because Russia never had any democracy, its not easy to establish that fast, and 30 Years is a really short time.
Ow lol, serious mistake here. EU is pretty new ( 20 years)
PS. According to current observations. Russia is far from "a democracy".
A lot of the countries that seperated from USSR in 1990 ( even Hungary), are doing a much better job.
My (probably poorly informed) take is that they're compensating for a weak economy by basically waging asymmetric/guerrilla warfare. Using minimal cost techniques to sow the most chaos possible. They may not be able to be strong, but they can make others weaker.
They spend a large % of GDP on military, while their neighbour easily outspends them because of a way bigger economy.
After all, Russia's GDP is similar to only 3 European countries ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands together is bigger, you can check it in Wolfram Alpha ).
They should just spend it on trade instead. So their population would get wealthier.
Edit: over estimated Russia's GDP. It's even smaller then France alone. Also Germany and Italy are easily bigger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Last time I checked Russia had a smaller GDP than Italy. Hell of a geopolitical presence for such a small economy.
You're correct. I could have just mentioned Germany/France/Italy being bigger by themselves than Russia.
It's even less then I expected. Weird.
Perhaps Wolfram Alpha had different numbers
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: checked. No it isn't, perhaps I was checking military expenditure then since that was what I was comparing a while ago.
Conclusion that I had was that Europe is outspending Russia easily in military.
Using GDP to measure Russian significance is like trying to measure American significance by counting the number of hotdogs consumed - it doesn't matter. Results are what matters.
For the amount that Russia spends on its military, it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period. Meanwhile the the New York Times described the F-35 as "America's Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program". Trillions spent on a jet with questionable fighting capabilities. American military leaders themselves don't trust the plane.
> it is able to project exponentially more force globally - it is #2 in the world, period
Is it, though? NATO has 18 aircraft carriers, of those 12 are American, 2 of them are British, and two are Italian. Russia has 1 that is sitting in dry dock for servicing since 2017 and was even further damaged when the dry dock sank[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admir...
>NATO has 18 aircraft carriers
That's because Russia never had interest in aircraft carriers, it's just not their military motto, you need Carrier's to attack a Country outside of your reach, witch Russia knew would never be successfully happen against NATO-States, that's why even in the Cold war Russia was always focused on defense.
Yea, that doesn't count as global force projection then, which was the argument a few comments upthread.
You know how big Russia still is? It would even count 'global' if they just stay inside the borders ;)
Russia's army is small compared with it's glory days during the USSR and we all know what happened then.
In these days, Europe easily outspends Russia and it's army IS bigger.
The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter :)
Besides that, Russias naval fleet is stuck behind Ukraine. I don't think they like that :)
>The F-35 is also better than the Su-57 and Russia has no 5th generation fighter
Well that's some Marketing blabla, same as that Generation blabla..AND Russia says that the Su-57 is 5th Gen ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter#R...
Oh and the US is not sure if the F35 is really a 5th gen jet (because lack of supercruise) but the F-22 is one.
Russia's military capabilities are slowly atrophying because the GDP isn't enough to support the footprint. The economy creaks over the massive expenditure, while maintenance is deferred, readiness decreases, and programs and training are halfassed.
Economic capability is fundamental to your ability to field and maintain a military.
Nonsense.
Russia can project its military in adjacent regions, for limited times. It has no blue water navy, its air force is at least one generation behind. Its army has crappy logistics (meaning staying power).
The only areas where it competes at all is in missiles, and even that area is debatable. Its vaunted S-300 and S-400 air defence systems are routinely ignored by the Israelis during airstrikes, as are its shorter range systems.
It has no budget to invest in R&D, and when it comes up with even a remotely interesting system, can only try to buy a few units.
The F-35 is superior to any Russian aircraft flying, including the SU-57. The F-22, a 30 year old design, is still far better than anything the Russians have, or will have in squadron numbers before 2030.
The Armada vehicle line is still a joke, and will probably never be produced in numbers due to budget constraints.
have you read the article? - no you haven't
"With relatively few sites reporting the radiation increase, identifying its origins is challenging. The RIVM added media reports that it believes Russia is the source are likely based on mistranslations of its Dutch statement, and that "no specific country of origin can be pointed out at this moment."
yet you took the trouble to collect in your post almost every single bad thing you heard about Russia, half of them outright lies, the rest being half-truths, and dump them all here.
Yes but then the US made the first step for a new Atomic Race:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nucle...
A retreat from arms control creates a dangerous nuclear reality:
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
I truly hope you're not an American or any other citizen of a country who is basically doing exactly the same thing. Would be highly ironic to sit and yell about Russia if so.
You should study contemporary US history and compare :)