Russia is only a regional power

originally posted by: biggilo
A study by a European think tank has analysed leading powers and asessed them by taking into account not just militarised but soft power also.
Number 1 is no surprise but look how far down Russia is.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk...

The key to understanding the rankings is "soft power." This is what Russia might call "cultural imperialism." It means that a nation has projected its cultural values and products internationally. The United States and Britain have created the lingua franca of the internet, and their films, television productions, and popular music have a global audience. France has a large sphere of former colonies that still speak French, giving them a certain amount of influence there. Their cultural products include not only film but literature and philosophy. Similarly, Japan and Korea have an international appeal in the form of cuisine and popular entertainment.

Russia has made little attempt to establish an international cultural "brand." Most of their cultural exports are considered "highbrow:" classical music, ballet, and massive works of literature. They are having some success in the area of heavy metal music. Unfortunately, it is most popular among far right European youth.

I have said before that rather than use covert means to influence other countries, they should open up a transparent network of Russian cultural centers worldwide, modeled on the Alliance Francaise and Goetheinstitut.

a reply to: DJW001

So basically you are saying because Russia haven't managed to compete in the entertainment sector they are losing the war, they haven't managed to reach enough people through popular culture,reaching the global audience, that Is their downfall.... Interesting perspective...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DJW001

So basically you are saying because Russia haven't managed to compete in the entertainment sector they are losing the war, they haven't managed to reach enough people through popular culture,reaching the global audience, that Is their downfall.... Interesting perspective...

That is part of the problem. "Soft power" extends to ideological, philosophical, and technological areas as well. The United States developed the IT technology that has become universal, and China is becoming the country that manufactures the hardware for that sector. Other than Tetris, Russia has made no contributions there.

At least the Soviet Union claimed to be pioneering "scientific socialism," which had an appeal to intellectuals and labor organizers in the last century. Russia is now trying to sell something called Euroasianism. This has much less international appeal, as it suggests a contiguous Russian dominated bloc with no place for residents of the remaining continents.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DJW001

So basically you are saying because Russia haven't managed to compete in the entertainment sector they are losing the war, they haven't managed to reach enough people through popular culture,reaching the global audience, that Is their downfall.... Interesting perspective...

Nations are business.

When you think of doing business in Russia...what kind if stuff comes to mind?

How about touring Russia? Does it sound like a lifelong dream?

Popular appeal does matter. Because natioms are business.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No Russia is not appealing, it is very secular, the kind of place you don't just visit for fun, you get invited or have a good reason to go .

I agree the world is a business, tourist money greatly improves a nations wealth.

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: rickymouse
They have enough nukes to destroy a lot of cities in the world. I wouldn't say they are just a regional power.

Nukes don't really equate to power though, and as Churchill said: above a certain mega tonnage you're only bouncing rubble.

The UK has the Commonwealth which affords it a lot of power and also has Canada and Australia. When we talk about Canada and Australia we aren't just talking about a usual alliance but the fact that the citizens are related, literally cousins and uncles. Most of us in the UK have at least one relative in those countries.

But the real test of military power is the logistics, if you can't deploy your troops in numbers and keep them supplied then you're done for, that's where countries like China and Russia fall.

I would be interested in reading the Chinese equivalent of this report if anyone has a link.

This is not the world it used to be. If you look back two hundred years, the power you are talking about was very important. Now it is all about a small number of people having the ability to launch weapons that can kill off many people. Those people can go into bunkers where it is safe when war breaks out. Now the people who have control of these weapons are loyal to the government, not the people, they are conditioned well.

What we have created is something dangerous to the citizens, not the leaders of the countries, they all have safe places to go to. The people who start this war are the ones less likely to die from this war. But, it has been that way for a long time.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DJW001

So basically you are saying because Russia haven't managed to compete in the entertainment sector they are losing the war, they haven't managed to reach enough people through popular culture,reaching the global audience, that Is their downfall.... Interesting perspective...

Nations are business.

When you think of doing business in Russia...what kind if stuff comes to mind?

How about touring Russia? Does it sound like a lifelong dream?

Popular appeal does matter. Because natioms are business.

Exactly. After an influx of direct foreign capital after the collapse of the USSR, the business climate got so bad no-one but criminal organizations wanted to do business there.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

No to be a super power you have to be able to put assets anywhere in the world. Be able to support them and do it within days. Currently the only one close to the US in being able to do this is the UK. And that's because no one pays attention to haw many military basses the UK has throughout the globe. Very few spots on the globe cannot be reached by British air force. They also have the logistical support because of these basses to maintain troops moved into an area. Russia if they can't use trains to ship supplies there troops will starve.

Russia’s reach has always been the extent of rail supplies. Syria has all ready taxed the Russians ability to supply an external conflict. Syria is under sanctions so Russia is not supposed to use comercial tankers to provide things like jet fuel. However Russia has no choice since there military can't handle moving supplies.

Only western countries sanctions Syria. Where do you get Russia is not allowed to use commercial tankers to provide jet fuel to Syria?

Russia and China have 5th gen jets. They are not considered regional powers by the vast majority of experts. They are typically considered super powers.

defence.pk...

defence.pk...

originally posted by: tyrannusL

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

No to be a super power you have to be able to put assets anywhere in the world. Be able to support them and do it within days. Currently the only one close to the US in being able to do this is the UK. And that's because no one pays attention to haw many military basses the UK has throughout the globe. Very few spots on the globe cannot be reached by British air force. They also have the logistical support because of these basses to maintain troops moved into an area. Russia if they can't use trains to ship supplies there troops will starve.

Russia’s reach has always been the extent of rail supplies. Syria has all ready taxed the Russians ability to supply an external conflict. Syria is under sanctions so Russia is not supposed to use comercial tankers to provide things like jet fuel. However Russia has no choice since there military can't handle moving supplies.

Only western countries sanctions Syria. Where do you get Russia is not allowed to use commercial tankers to provide jet fuel to Syria?

They are not supposed to use EU waterways to supply Syria. This means for example that Russia cant send a tanker through Turkey if the destination is Syria. However they break these rules for at least 2 years now.


www.thetimes.co.uk...

a reply to: tyrannusL


Should a superpower not have more than one aircraft carrier (the Kuznetsov is I think technically classed as an aircraft cruiser but anyway) and in any event not one that has to be followed around by a tug because it keeps breaking down?

originally posted by: tyrannusL
Russia and China have 5th gen jets. They are not considered regional powers by the vast majority of experts. They are typically considered super powers.

defence.pk...

defence.pk...

But unlike our own Western 5th gen fighters we can easily track them with our radars.

originally posted by: tyrannusL
Russia and China have 5th gen jets. They are not considered regional powers by the vast majority of experts. They are typically considered super powers.

defence.pk...

defence.pk...

Trying not to laugh just about every country in the world is making a 5th genoration fighters. Problem is not everyone has managed to pull it off. Russia has a prototype the x50 but as yet has not begun production of the SU-57. They are just compleating testing and its expected they will start production next year. They have 12 aircraft planned for the roll out and On 8 February 2018, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuriy Borisov said that the first stage of state trials has been concluded and that the combat trials are on schedule. During the interview, he also reported that the contract for an initial batch of 12 aircraft is to be signed in 2018.

But since we are discussing Syria ill add this, "On 21 February 2018, two Su-57s were spotted as landing at the Russian Khmeimim air base in Syria. The aircraft were deployed along with four Sukhoi Su-35 fighters, four Sukhoi Su-25s, and one Beriev A-50 AEW&C aircraft.Three days later two more Su-57s were reported to have arrived in Syria.[136] The deployment was criticised by some experts as overly risky.Military correspondent of Komsomolskaya Pravda Viktor Baranets was cited as saying that according to his information the Su-57s have "excellently" carried out their mission in Eastern Ghouta."

Russia was using it to bomb Ghouta. But creating a 5th gen fighter doesn't make a superpower. And Russia has a problem the power plant is underpowered and the new design wont be ready until 2025. Ill add I do like the design however its stealth capabilities are questionable.




en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: tyrannusL
Russia and China have 5th gen jets. They are not considered regional powers by the vast majority of experts. They are typically considered super powers.

defence.pk...

defence.pk...

But unlike our own Western 5th gen fighters we can easily track them with our radars.

Kofman: I think it's a stealthier aircraft than your typical fourth-generation design. I don't think it matches the stealth capability of the F-22 or F-35, nor does it match the price tag of them. I think it's a poor man's stealth aircraft. I think it'll be a very capable platform. I don't think it'll match or compete the low-observation parameters of US aircraft.

www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

I would not get into any Chinese plane with Chinese engines in it.

LMAO!

After seeing how bad they screw up basic stuff like the fake space walk with water bubbles...i have no faith that the Chinese could win a war with anyone but North Korea.

Their military is only good at fighting their own people. They call them a "liberation army", in true Orwellian form.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: biggilo

Great Britain was only a regional power yet held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world's population at one time.

Just a thought.

Huh?

Imperial Britain was THE world power at the time. They could project power better than any other country at the time with any extensive fleet and colonies all over the world.

originally posted by: DJW001
Russia has made little attempt to establish an international cultural "brand."

Oh, I don't know. AK47 is pretty iconic.

The problem with Russia is that their previous brand i.e. Marxist–Leninist ideology was a failure. The influence of Russia came crashing down with the failed Soviet Union.

They especially lost influence when all the nations in Eastern Europe that had been under the repressive jack boot turned their back on their of old overlord and looked West.

Russia is an ethno state. It's a state for Russians. Official language in Russia is Russian. Regional power or not, Russians would fight to the death if invaded. Napoleon and Hitler thought Russia would be a piece of cake. Not so.

We tend to claim a lot of things about Russia.

Just because russia dont have as many military bases as the US does. Does not mean russia cant project power where ever they want. Different weapon systems combined with a few national forces can be enough to prevent the US from attacing or even to invade. The abillity to move large forces dont have the same value today like it had before. New weapon systems have replaced the need to move large forces arround.