Really second tier [1], just holding nuclear weapon [2] and good brainwashing by state media. Economically far behind [3]. Nothing to gain with direct confrontation, no TSMC in Crimea, wars for prestige should be successful.
When talking about war, the only measure more useless and irrelevant than GDP and economic strength is toenail length.
Afghanistan is sitting at around $500/capita. Russia and the US have completely failed there despite four decades of conflict. Vietnam was about $60-70 during the tail end of the Vietnam War[1]. We know how that ended.
I'd say that maybe you could win if you abandoned traditional war tactics and just bombed indiscriminately and avoided suffering too many casualties, but, well, that was tried and failed in those wars. You also wouldn't want to try it against a country that can and will fire back.
Compared to US, maybe. But you are not doing justice to them just by looking at the USD expenditure since they produce almost everything within Russia and it might be far cheaper to produce stuff there. Here is what GFP ranks their military at: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp. Even an economically more powerful country like China still has defence imports from Russia.
It's ranking countries by an opaque "power index" (sorry, "PwrIndx", because vowels cost more or something?), and there is no description of what this entails other than "over 50 individual factors". The only thing I could find to drill down on contains effectively a bare listing of things such as army size, population size, number of tanks, oil reserves, etc.--which emphasizes quantity over quality.
So you might understand why my trust in those numbers to mean anything is rather lacking.
Yeah, not sure about that power index calculation myself. But I think it would be very hard to compare things on quality. Like take the example of air power. Sure F-22, F-35, B-2/B-21 combination probably beats any other force. But after that, it gets murky as every country will hype its own inventory. I think PRC still purchases some of the planes and parts from them, so I guess Russian made planes might have an edge on them at least in some areas.
It's worth pointing out that there's a distinction to be made between having modern military kit and being able to effectively use it. This is a problem that most notably plagues the Arab militaries, in that they have the funds to buy the good stuff, but they are unwilling to invest in the training (or the operational independence) to effectively use it [1].
I'm not sure how modern Russia and China fare in this regard, compared to each other or to Western powers. Both countries have definitely showed signs in the past decade or so of trying to push through military reforms and adding more junior officers compared to senior officers.
[1] Classic case study: first Gulf War, where the casualty ratio was a lopsided 100:1, despite the Iraqi military having rough numerical parity and access to modern kit.
I was comparing to EU (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy in the list), maybe should compare with NATO. Following your logic China production is far cheaper. Israel has a lot of exports too [1] vs [2] but that's a good point [3]. Unfortunately your list is opaque.
Is anybody going to go to war with Russia, China, or the US though? All three of these countries are too big and difficult to invade. You would quite literally have to decimate any one of them to keep hold of it. And economically it would be extremely unprofitable to the US and China. Russia could theoretically gain quite a bit if it managed to annex China but there is the whole issue of how would you even go about that? Nuclear war because it turns into an asshole measuring contest seems more likely but that is a straight doomsday scenario.
No I think future wars between these three will all be proxy and economic. It’s easier to do the asshole measuring in the Middle East than on your own turf. And economy is ultimately what matters.
I think the main issue is that Russia has a lot of tendrils in the US at this point starting with the one they have up Trump’s cloaca. They can do a lot of damage with cyber attacks and propaganda but ultimately it’s all about weakening the economy, not about annexation.
It looks like he may have swiped the tripartition from Burnham, THE MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION, but it also corresponds nicely to who has the bomb.
Eastasia - CN
Eurasia - FR (sub/air only), RU
Oceania - UK (sub only), US
Edit: FWIW, after skimming a summary of Burnham (the precursor to IngSoc), I'd say that capital, having devised hedge funds, LBOs, and PE, have shown they know well how to keep management in their place.
Conflicts between capital and management are nothing new: roman senators were not supposed to be "in trade", but owning commercial ventures was perfectly respectable. (I've heard it jokingly said that one's golf handicap in strokes ~= one's office time in hours per week...)
Yeah, you are right. Wars between these three are going to be proxy or economic.
I think actual war is unlikely between any two of these three but I think skirmishes are very likely. Russia and China/US I doubt as Russia doesn't seem to have a concern which overlaps with the interest from other two on ground except Syria I guess, but between US and China, South China Sea might become a flashpoint if they both keep pushing each other there out of ego.
Russia, as an ailing/former superpower, is quite sensitive to foreign incursions into its sphere of influence, especially the former USSR. Its wars against Ukraine and Georgia were motivated in large part by the fact that said countries were maneuvering closer to NATO and the West, for example. Conflict between Russia and China over expanding Chinese influence in Central Asia (given Chinese investment into infrastructure there) is not impossible.
Another flashpoint between Russia and China could well be the Russian Far East; Russia has long been pretty paranoid that China is going to try to claim the land as its own.
> I think Russia might be fine with those considering they themselves[1] are part of China's flagship BRI project.
I can see that changing quite quickly if there's evidence of a political shift in Central Asia that disfavors Russia. Say a new Turkmeni strongman decides to start his foreign trips by visiting Beijing and doesn't call on Russia for a few years. Or a Putin-successor with flagging popularity sees being more combative here as an easy way to boost popularity (much as the Crimean annexation was driven in part by Putin attempting to improve his support)--although targeting Western country is more likely here.
> Didn't Russia and China settle their border differences in early 2000s?
The lack of existing border disputes doesn't mean that the population accepts the border. Take Alsace-Lorraine--the border was never a live dispute, but France and Germany sure saw fit to switch it to their side every opportunity in the early 20th century. The Chinese have their own self-image as being a nation unjustly carved up and tormented by foreign powers, and the current border is seen as being one of those examples [1].
To be clear: I don't see any of these flashpoints as likely; I'm just pointing out that there is a split between Russia and China that could lead to a war, and that war between any two of Russia/China/USA is plausible.
Further, these three countries are completely different, culturally and ethnically. Germany invading and occupying Austria might work - there isn't a great deal of difference between their people. But Russia, US and China are poles apart. Especially China
