TacoMac
Well-Known Member
And they ruled the world. Before them, it was Spain...and they ruled the world. Before them, it was the Portuguese and they ruled the world. See how that works?
The new and modernized Russian Combined Arms forces are a very credible threat vs NATO, others
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- military hardware russia
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The economics of his military build up is scary too.
Russia has 11th largest economy in terms of GDP, between Canada and S Korea. In terms of %GDP spent on military, within that list of top eleven economies, care to guess where she sits ranked?
First, by a lot.
Also 3rd largest military spend, although the US and China spend a whole lot more.
Also, Putin's economy isn't doing nearly as well as other top economies in terms of growth and other metrics.
I don't think his extraordinary diversion of the economy into military expenses is sustainable. Also sanctions really bite when tax revenue goes into tanks and ships instead of roads and hospitals.
His belligerent nationalism reminds of other dictators who drove their economy by spending up on military. 1930's Germany for example. Hitler was heading his country's economy for the rocks and had to invade other countries to keep power. I think Putin is planning more invasions.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He's just clueless in general.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
The 3rd Reich had an excellent economy largely through the construction of large public works, as Trump would put it "jobs jobs jobs, so many jobs".
That is why the Germans liked him so much.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I heard about that. American forces have real problems with asymmetrical warfare.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They make him more powerful and more popular at home. But who else to attack? He's running short of local targets.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ukraine for one. Lithuania for another. These are already places where he's occupied and stationed troops. I'm not exactly making it all up:
http://www.awdnews.com/society/-the-united-states-and-nato-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia
I see as unhealthy and unsustainable the military expenditures by Putin. That, along with the kind of nationalistic pride emanating from press releases about "the awesome new Russian military" makes me think that he's heading towards invasion, not defense.
The economy of Russia is not doing well and these are not bad times worldwide. 5% of GDP on military hardware and troops isn't sustainable in a sick economy. This is not a hard and fast opinion of mine but I'm connecting the dots between what Hitler did in a similar situation. Invasion, justified by belligerent nationalism when an economy cannot sustain that kind of military build-up has been done before.
In order to keep his nation economically competitive, or at least on par with other similar economies, he needs to cut the military budget in half. Failing that, he's going to have to start using his toys to justify purchasing them.
I haven't read the whole thread. What's your take on all of this?
biostudent
Well-Known Member
Well, technically, it doesn't really matter that much if a certain % of the GDP is spent on military instead of public works, as long as you are purchasing from local buyers. All the money spent on military equipment is going from your budget back into your economy to pay for the services required to produce that equipment. Engineers, technicians, electricians, scientists of many fields, as well as local businesses are kept employed and paid this way. You can pay an aeronautical engineer to develop you an attack aircraft or you can redirect those funds and pay a civil engineer to develop you a metro train. Either way, somebody in the country is employed and paid.
Unlike many other countries, Russia has a very large share in global weapons exports, thus imo their defense spendings are sustainable.
Unlike many other countries, Russia has a very large share in global weapons exports, thus imo their defense spendings are sustainable.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well that was pure garbage.
Yeah I suppose it doesn't matter that the populace is employed to find ways to destroy the world and arm everyone instead of meeting humanity's needs and combatting the existential threat posed by our civilization called climate change. I suppose we might as well accelerate our carbon emissions instead of curbing, as long as everyone's employed so they won't become pissed off enough to collectively shed the forces driving our economies in the wrong direction...
Yeah I suppose it doesn't matter that the populace is employed to find ways to destroy the world and arm everyone instead of meeting humanity's needs and combatting the existential threat posed by our civilization called climate change. I suppose we might as well accelerate our carbon emissions instead of curbing, as long as everyone's employed so they won't become pissed off enough to collectively shed the forces driving our economies in the wrong direction...
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
It's not an issue of price it's an issue of value.
What provides more value to the public as well as injects money into the local economy is the preferable choice.
What provides better value to the public, free education or a $6.2billion aircraft carrier?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Bullshit.
There's no doubt that spending public money on infrastructure like highways, mass transit and high speed internet is better for the economy and therefore our prosperity than fighter planes that don't fucking work.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Do you have some premises for that conclusion or are you just hoping to make the left out to be idiots?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Build a road and people can use it to expand the economy for decades. Build an aircraft carrier and then what happens? Plow more into it to man it, maintain it and eventually break it apart.
But 5% of the GDP spent on military hardware during a time of peace isn't useful to anybody. Not even the generals. If the best that can be said is "jobs" then just give them the money. Cut out the middle man and give the people who would have worked on building a bomb the money. The money would be used in better ways than building a fighter jet.
None of the 10 economies larger than Russia spend 5%-6% of GDP on military expenditures. Not even close. US spends 3% and that's the closest one.
Into a stalled economy (or shrinking economy), Russia is outspending everybody else on unproductive assets. Unproductive, that is, unless a war breaks out. Which is why I'm thinking Putin is planning war.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Don't believe all the propaganda, here's a pic from two years ago. It's a hand held GPS in the cockpit of a Russian SU-24 attack jet.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
What's the point of spending money on infrastructure if there is no industry there to utilize it? What's the point of paying tuition for an engineer if there is no job for him? Funding the industry, whether defense or not, is what creates jobs and drives the economy.
Take a look at the United Arab Emirates - the filthy rich government provides free tuition, free healthcare, hands out money to it's citizens, has state-of-the-art glistening infrastructure, but no damn industry, no jobs (apart from real estate and tourism). The only local engineer that finds a job there is a chemical engineer who digs up oil.
I don't think you know of the penetration the Russian arms industry has in the global market. They can develop equipment, like the Mig-29, one time and sell it for decades, similar to how Lockheed developed the F-16 and made money off it for 40 years; all the while, both Lockheed and Mikoyan kept thousands of engineers and scientists employed.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
See? The only one he could effectively make a fool of was the alt-leftist with a weak ass argument. It bolsters his position and gives other detractors talking points.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
All of that also expands the economy. Somebody is contracted to man it, to maintain it and to break it apart. Services are rendered and paid for just like any other part of the economy. Some spend lots on it, some not a lot. % of GDP imo is a useless indicator.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
You'd have to ask the locals. Afaik, the main frame as well as all the subsystems on Russian warships, are contracted to local Russian manufacturers which means that very large portions of the $6.2b are going into the pockets of Russian people who are kept employed by these types of investments.
What's the point of free education if there are no jobs? Russia as well as many other countries suffer from a brain-drain, where educated individuals are forced to emigrate due to lack of jobs that results from lack of industry. That is a bigger waste than anything else - giving free education to individuals who will not even practice in the country. And this was one of the reasons - the brain-drain from Russia and Germany - that fuelled the rapid advancements in weapons technology in the US, earlier in the 20th century.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You sound as if you think that only the defense industry can be a job creator. Such an assumption could not be further from the truth.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
Would be better not to criticize content as assumptuous especially when the critique itself is an assumption.
I'm just saying the defense industry is no different than any other industry - they all create jobs. Quite contrary to what many others think that "money is wasted in the defense industry" and is "better to put it in the economy", not realizing the defense industry is a part of the economy. Logic fail.
Last edited: