Implications that the GDP of Russia is equivalent of that of Guangdong, China

Apr 2016
422
appartments
All this is probably irrelevant. In the first place, there will never be a ground war between the US and China since the US will never invade China and China has no ability to invade the US - not now, not in the foreseeable future. So this manpower disparity means nothing.

Any serious war between the US and China will be nuclear and if that happens, there will be no winners on either side. So 1 & 2 don't matter.
How about Philippines, Korea (as it actually already was) or Japan after all?
 

Wenge

Ad Honoris
Apr 2011
10,428
Virginia
All this is probably irrelevant. In the first place, there will never be a ground war between the US and China since the US will never invade China and China has no ability to invade the US - not now, not in the foreseeable future. So this manpower disparity means nothing.

Any serious war between the US and China will be nuclear and if that happens, there will be no winners on either side. So 1 & 2 don't matter.
Perhaps it may never get to nuclear but a ground war between the U.S. and China is not plausible. It will be an air and sea war for certain. The winner will be determined when the loser runs out of resources with which to fight.

Either way there will be no true winner.
 
Oct 2014
354
kenya
Perhaps it may never get to nuclear but a ground war between the U.S. and China is not plausible. It will be an air and sea war for certain. The winner will be determined when the loser runs out of resources with which to fight.

Either way there will be no true winner.
Someone always wins, like USA in WW2. I think the scare of nuclear weapons is overstated. War will happen (a major war)
 

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,947
Canary Islands-Spain
No other sentence ever described the country geostrategic position as "Russia is never as strong as she looks, neither as weak as she looks".
 
Jun 2015
579
Camelot
Yet it outdone the US in Syria
Syria is irrelevant to this wavering regime presently in power in the US, but Russia proved its impotence when it couldn't defeat IS and the rebels in short order despite cluster bombing and not caring about collateral damage, and in some cases boots on the ground.

They also can't even beat Ukraine with their cloaked special forces, so that's something.
 
Jul 2009
9,424
No other sentence ever described the country geostrategic position as "Russia is never as strong as she looks, neither as weak as she looks".
I recall Metternich said something like that (or was supposed to).

Russia has been described as many things, of course. It is an enormous area with great resources. However, Russia is - and has always been - a prisoner of her geographical position. The attempts at Russian power projection away from her geographic base have historically been either disappointing (the residue of Soviet Russian domination in eastern Europe) or disastrous (1904/05 in east Asia; the failed attempts at extending Soviet influence in the Americas; the attempts at naval superiority in the late 1970s and 80s which helped to bankrupt the country).

Russia's size is both a strength and a weakness. She has strategic depth, but also potential enemies on numerous fronts. In the longer term, Russia may have to contend with China for resources in Asiatic Russia which the Chinese economy cannot do without. How that might play out is conjecture, however, Russia making political and psychological attempts to weaken NATO and the US would indicate that Russia sees China as more of a threat than the West.

If the West can be neutralized asymmetrically (by political subterfuge and cyber assault) then attention can be paid to the Chinese and to their undeniable advantages in both economy and population. The president of the Russian Federation can posture all he wants, but Russia's long term prospects are less than favorable.
 

Similar History Discussions