Indeed, Russia has global projection, yes, but is limited compared with the US global range. The only Global Power in every term you can imagine is the US, no country can compete, yet. Regarding the other affairs that we are discussing, be careful. Not all the Central American Countries despise the US, or at least this will lead them to make an alliance with Russia. This can be discussed, nobody is so fool. Yes, possibly the US influence is become weak in latin america, but the Caribbean area is a key for US security. Besides, Even in South America, many countries has solid and visible cooperation with US. Mexico, Colombia, Perú, Chile. All the Pacific coast. So, despite of appearances, US has an important influence yet.

Every regional power has a limited ability to project his influence at the global level. So, we must to accept that Russia and another countries has this capacities. And together have an important impact in the international system. Look the BRICS, all of them are regional powers in their respective continents. In internacional relationships the concept "Regional Power, or Middle Power" is a very discussed concept. We, don't be surprised if this concept leads to very heated discussions. The Internacional System is changing quickly, and the players position are changing too, so the indefinition of everything is high. Pure diplomacy (and may be war).

geojanes wrote:Despite the attitude, I don't think we disagree too much: I think you're right that Russia would like to be a global power, and Russia appears to have learned that diplomacy can be a very valuable, extremely cost effective tool. But geopolitically Russia does not have nearly an economy that can support the power of the US or China. In areas of their region, they can be very powerful, but I'm sorry, Central America? The only influence they wield in the New World is with countries that have turned their back on the US (Cuba, Venezuela) and who seek friends elsewhere. I think IK has described it best. Read his posts again and say where he got it wrong.

And even where Russia has influence, China is building too. In Cuba, it is China who are investing in some of the areas that the USSR had been up to 1990. Even when last year the Chinese President visited Central America and did not go to Cuba or Venezuela, it was more so that he could go to other nations and not have awkward diplomatic issues in the US later. But China is looking seriously in that region and the Russians just cannot hope to in places like Mexico or Costa Rica:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-3

According to Enrique Dussel, a China expert at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, Latin America and the Caribbean were collectively the second largest recipient of Chinese foreign direct investment between 2000-2011, after Hong Kong. In terms of funding, Kevin Gallagher of Boston University says China has provided more loans to Latin America since 2005 than the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank combined. The visits to Mexico and Costa Rica may also represent a pivot of sorts in terms of the type of economic relationship China has with Latin America. Up until now, China has hoovered up the region’s commodities, importing soya, copper, iron, oil and other raw materials, particularly from Brazil, Chile and Venezuela, while flooding the region with its manufactured goods.

Of course every regional power wants to be a global power. Especially one that used to be a global power (or is the rump of a previous global power), but one thing about Russia in relation to Middle Eastern issues is that they are not alone. Russia alone may not be able to do much, but when you consider that Russia is actually taking a common cause (anti-US/Western influence) with another major regional power (Iran) and with a global power (China), which magnifies their influence.

I.K wrote:Indeed, Russia has global projection, yes, but is limited compared with the US global range. The only Global Power in every term you can imagine is the US, no country can compete, yet. Regarding the other affairs that we are discussing, be careful. Not all the Central American Countries despise the US, or at least this will lead them to make an alliance with Russia. This can be discussed, nobody is so fool. Yes, possibly the US influence is become weak in latin america, but the Caribbean area is a key for US security. Besides, Even in South America, many countries has solid and visible cooperation with US. Mexico, Colombia, Perú, Chile. All the Pacific coast. So, despite of appearances, US has an important influence yet.

Certainly the US retains influence, but as the developing world becomes more developed - and it seems that this process is now taking off in parts of Southern America - countries will want to retain their own independence and also to balance out the external influence of larger powers. In a sense it is easier now for them than it was in the Cold War when there was choice of two and they would often make things conditional on excluding the other. Now we have the USA as the major world power but a handful of others around the world, none of whom are really in a ideological conflict with each other, and with the advent of freer global trade, you can see that countries have more choices than just to stick with the hegemony of the US.

Every regional power has a limited ability to project his influence at the global level. So, we must to accept that Russia and another countries has this capacities. And together have an important impact in the international system. Look the BRICS, all of them are regional powers in their respective continents. In internacional relationships the concept "Regional Power, or Middle Power" is a very discussed concept. We, don't be surprised if this concept leads to very heated discussions. The Internacional System is changing quickly, and the players position are changing too, so the indefinition of everything is high. Pure diplomacy (and may be war).

Indeed. We should not underestimate Russia (or China, or even India or Brazil), but neither should we overestimate them.

As for military strength, there are four countries with larger active militaries (in terms of personnel) than Russia: China (2.285M), USA (1.5M), India (1.325M) and NK (1.106M). Russia's main military strength lies in nuclear weapons and tanks. The former are a global threat but one which would be suicidal to use. The latter are powerful, but not globally, but are the reason they can threaten places like Ukraine and Georgia - they also have good air power but again it can't extend that far because they don't have global bases (unlike the USA) and is mainly of use to cover ground attacks.

The real threat to Russia is economic. It has not recovered fully from the end of the USSR, has lost a lot of trade with former clients, and while it has powerful commodity reserves and market lead, that can be vulnerable. It does not have much ability to invest globally, in contrast to China. India is also showing it can compete with companies like Tata and Mittal but is some way behind in terms of overseas investment. By contrast, Russia is behind nations like Spain, Holland and Belgium in terms of investment (China looks low on the list, but when you include Hong Kong, it's up there with the likes of the UK, Germany and France) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... FDI_abroad

Also, I don't see Russia as all that internally stable. The problem with having a country held together by the dominance of a strong single figure is that when they go, there is a power vacuum. Putin will not last forever, and who is his successor? Again, that it part of the vulnerability of Russia's 'power'.

There is one clear global power - the USA. There is another power that we have to consider as global - China. Below that are the big regional players (Russia, India, Brazil, S Africa, Iran, Germany) and the two old Western Powers of France and the UK. None are truly global in terms of power and influence, but all have aspects at that level.

I think there is one other important element to the notion of global power which is culture/ideology. The U.S. shares an ideology of democratic-liberal capitalism with a number of other countries. It encompasses how nations treat each other and their people. It transcends any particular leadership. Although we often fall short of our ideals, the ideals have power that motivates other countries to join the umbrella They yearn to be like us and partake of its benefits. Relative to empires of the past, it can be benign. Ukraine more or less chose to join it in spite of Russian military might, historic ethnic ties, and Russian gas.

Unlike the Soviet Union, neither Russia nor China has a global ideology. They can offer economic assistance to others. They can show military might. They can tap into resentments over U.S. hegemony, past or present, but they are not offering a coherent view that will transcend any particular leadership or short tem political/economic cost/benefit analysis. Russia is a regional power because of regional might and regional culture. They can offer Ukraine Russian culture and history, but that's not something they can offer the Americas, Africa, or most of Asia.

Ray Jay wrote: Russia is a regional power because of regional might and regional culture. They can offer Ukraine Russian culture and history, but that's not something they can offer the Americas, Africa, or most of Asia.

Not picking on you, but let's flip this around. What, exactly, does the US have to offer Ukraine? When Russia amasses 80-100,000 troops on her border, we offer Ukraine . . . a few verbal slights of Putin?

So, is the US a "regional power?" We've so much as admitted there's nothing we can do. Further, there's nothing we can do in Syria. There's nothing we can do in Iran.

And, again, if Russia is a "regional power," isn't China also a "regional power?" So, there is no one who can stay the hand of the only "superpower," right?

I think everyone's involved in a lot of kabuki theater to dress up what was a Presidential gaffe. Russia may not be a "superpower," but it is certainly more than merely a "regional power" to be dismissed as an afterthought. If that were the case, Putin could not make Obama's life hell over and over again.

Dr. Fate:

Not picking on you, but let's flip this around. What, exactly, does the US have to offer Ukraine? When Russia amasses 80-100,000 troops on her border, we offer Ukraine . . . a few verbal slights of Putin?

So, is the US a "regional power?" We've so much as admitted there's nothing we can do. Further, there's nothing we can do in Syria. There's nothing we can do in Iran.

We can do a lot ... we (our leaders) have chosen not to.

We can knock out Iranian nukes; we can force regime change in Syria; Ukraine is more challenging, but we can certainly provide more and better missile defense to other eastern European countries as well as create a lot of pain for Russia (see my other post on their economy). I'm outside my field of expertise, but I suspect there is more we can do militarily as well. We have more capability now, and they have less, than during the Berlin crisis.

Now, let's talk about the "superpower."

The United States Navy, meanwhile, has dropped to 7,000 sailors and Marines, down from the 40,000 sailors who were stationed at nine major Navy bases during the height of the Cold War. Today, there are no American aircraft carrier groups based in the Mediterranean, although the Navy does have one destroyer deployed at Cádiz, Spain.

In other words, “the limited ground forces in Europe are not designed to suddenly project power against Russia in a number of days,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Basically, the most constructive thing you can do is not create such a challenge that Russia would feel compelled to respond.”

Pentagon officials will not make public precise details about the American arsenal of weapons and equipment in Europe for security reasons. But an official with European Command, which is responsible for American military operations in Europe, said Wednesday that the American military presence there was 85 percent smaller than it was in 1989.

In the past quarter-century, the United States has divested itself of hundreds of bases and radio and radar positions originally meant to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union.

. . .

“With a resurgent Russia,” he said, “this is a poor moment for the U.S.-led West to be weak in resolve and muscle.” Diplomacy and sanctions may be the right response for now, he said, but the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, “will look beyond those things to see where the real check on his actions might come from.”

Given that France is going to (so far) deliver two helicopter carriers to Russia, and the rest of Europe is unwilling/unable to put painful sanctions on Russia, why shouldn't he pursue whatever policy he wants?

How weak will the US be?

The most startling part of the plan is the proposal to cut the active-duty Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 soldiers, from a wartime peak of 570,000 — which would reduce the force to its smallest size since before World War II.

If I recall correctly, the effective "combat" numbers are much lower as the above figures include all the support units.

ray

Ukraine is more challenging

It is. for one, a large component of the current Ukraine government are neo Nazi.. How do you feel about the US supporting their presence as part of the Ukraine government?
Svoboda was given almost a quarter of the Cabinet positions in the interim government formed after the ouster of President Yanukovych.
European Parliament passed a resolution on Ukraine in 2012 that asked Kiev not to associate with the party on account of its “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views.

It seems to me that Russia does have genuine concern for Russian ethnics in Ukraine. For instance among the first Laws passed by the interim government was one that would have dropped Russia as an official language.
There are ethnic tensions, cultural differences and history that make Ukraine a more complex problem than many realize. And it may be that Russia not only should, but must play a part in finding a lasting solution that recognizes the current realities of ethnic, cultural and linguistic tensions... They responsible for much of the difficult history of the region, and dominate the economy. It might be that their incursion into Crimea was "illegal". But it has ensured that there is little violence in the region and there is no civil war... That was something feared by many as the events of the last two years evolved.
Today (March 30) the Russian government suggested that the solution to the Ukraine might be a new form of government providing greater local autonomy to the constituent parts of Ukraine. and they included Crimea in that .Perhaps they are right.

Ray Jay wrote:
We can do a lot ... we (our leaders) have chosen not to.

Indeed. Of course sometimes people can be so "preoccupied with whether could, that they didn't stop to think if the should" (as per Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park).

We can knock out Iranian nukes;

Can you? Do you even know where they are, if they exist, etc etc?

we can force regime change in Syria;

Which new regime woul. You want to impose, how do you stop them being as bad as Assad, and how capable are you of keeping them in power with Iranian and AlQeada and local opposition. Regime change is 'easy'. Afghanistan and Iraq prove that it is the next bit that provides the big challenge (and may not be simply solved using brute military force).

Ukraine is more challenging, but we can certainly provide more and better missile defense to other eastern European countries as well as create a lot of pain for Russia (see my other post on their economy). I'm outside my field of expertise, but I suspect there is more we can do militarily as well. We have more capability now, and they have less, than during the Berlin crisis.

[/quote][/quote]For the Berlin Airlift you had a lot of men and materiel a few hundred miles away, similarly disposed allies who were also local, and a simple objective.

We should not overstimate our own capabilities sometimes