Russia is the largest country in the world and it's economy is smaller than California yet they can infiltrate the government of the largest economy and produce a military of gigantic proportions, how is this possible?
Influence and power do not correlate directly with money. You can get a BigMac in California for $4 or you can get the same BigMac in Russia for under $2. The Cali BigMac is no better than the Russian BigMac, you just pay more for it.California’s economy is a bit larger than Russia’s in nominal GDP, but much smaller than Russia’s when you factor in purchasing power parity. In other words, California has more money, but Californians can purchase much less with that money than Russians can. In terms of GDP PPP, Russia’s economy is slightly larger than the economies of California and New England combined. It is the 5th largest economy in the world.What does this have to do with Russia’s influence and military?Well, when salaries are significantly lower, you are able to produce much more using the same amount of money. Russia can afford to have a very large military at a fraction of the cost of the American military. Russia does not have to pay nearly as much to its scientists and researchers, let alone military personnel. So the fact that the United States spends 10 times more than Russia on its military does not equal a tenfold advantage in military capability. The reality is that the U.S. military is perhaps 3 or 4 times stronger than Russia’s. It is still a big advantage, but not nearly as big as it looks on paper. Russia easily has the second or third strongest military in the world while spending 10% of the American military budget.The same goes for non-military types of influence. The fact that the salaries of Russian diplomats, media reporters or IT specialists are much lower does not mean that their work is of a lower quality. Russia can easily run an information campaign at a fraction of the cost it would cost the United States to run the same sort of campaign.The other advantage Russia has is centralization of power and money. The Russian president has far greater influence over his government and his country’s resources than the U.S. president. It is much easier for the Russian government to mobilize funds or the military or any other resource than it is for the U.S. government to do the same. There isn’t much need in Russia to justify expenditures to the country’s regions or to the voters or to any other constituency. The president’s initiative is usually all it takes to push a large new project or initiative through the parliament and get to work. The American president and government do not have the same luxury.
Is it true that Putin has outsmarted Obama and Clinton as Trump claims?
Willingness to blow things up is not “outsmarting”Putin has been very aggressive. But outsmarted? I don’t think so. What he’s done is bully countries far smaller than him.And bullies tend to do badly when they get out of high school. We’re playing the long game. He’s not.He’s moved into Syria, which looks clever but in the long run will probably become a quagmire the way Afghanistan did. There are far too many groups to consolidate any power behind a single party.The only reason he’s making progress is because we haven’t chosen to directly confront him with military force. We’d win: Russian anti-aircraft and electronic warfare capabilities are intimidating, but we have the better professional army, a 10:1 advantage in aircraft carriers and a superior air force. But it would be idiotic.Putin’s brute-force approach is familiar: The USSR used it during the Cold War. But again, we need to play the long game.The Soviets lost the Cold War because they bankrupted themselves trying to occupy swaths of territory. They can build up their military, but don’t have the economic engine to support it. They can create more dangerous nukes, but the truth is we all have so many warheads that “more effective” warheads are like bigger hair on a dog’s back. It’s irrelevant, because everything’s already covered.Again: The long game.Putin hasn’t attempted action against NATO countries. He’s pursuing an all-or-nothing strategy in his own country where, if he fails to purge every opposition group, he’s eventually going to lose all power. If he doesn’t do that, then he’ll have to find a way to sustain what he’s built after he’s dead. How will he do that? Does he have a protege?What’s he doing to address the Russian economy? We dwarf their GDP by at least 5x.Yup: The long game.FinallyPutin supports Trump because he knows he can’t work with Clinton or Obama. If he really thought he could outsmart Clinton, why not support her?And, before we point fingers at the current administration: What we’re really dealing with, and will for decades, is the aftermath of the Iraq war. We destabilized the entire Middle East, which led to the rise of additional terrorist organizations, which led to civil war in multiple countries and complete fragmentation of political interests. We accelerated the fall of nation states, which left room for smaller groups who practice asymmetric warfare. Huge headache.But Putin? Outsmart Clinton and Obama? No.