Why is the Russian Navy so weak compared to the US?
To me, this is like asking why a 12 year old boy was not able to beat up his 17 year old brother. I’m sure some 12 year olds could, but it’s unrealistic to expect them to. It’s also very unrealistic to expect the Russian Navy to be anywhere near the level of the US Navy.Russia has a population of about 145 million. The US has a population of about 320 million. Russia has a GDP of $4.15 trillion (in USD) and the United States has a GDP of $20.2 trillion. Russia is (for the most part) a single contiguous landmass of roughly 6,592,800 square miles (17,075,200 sq km) while the US is only 3,796,742 square miles (9,833,520 km) and two of the 50 states are not even connected to the rest of the US. Those two states are also both very strategically critical. Hawaii is pretty close to the center of the Pacific Ocean- and pretty far away from any other landmass, while Alaska has a critical source of oil, as well as an incredible amount of fishing and crabbing.Russia has less than half the population of the United States, slightly over 1/5 of the GDP, and yet has to defend a landmass nearly twice the size. The United States only borders two other nations, while Russia borders 14 others. This puts a very high demand for army and air force resources, limiting what would resources would be available for a navy. The United States has vastly more money, but also relies very heavily on its navy, which is unquestionably the largest and most powerful in the world, and that’s been true for 75 years.We can talk about aging ships in the Russian Navy, new advances in the US Navy, and all of the other things to show how much of a contrast there is, but it’s never been a fair comparison.That said, Russia does have a large navy, and it’s almost definitely one of the top ten most powerful navies in the world. I’ve lost track of the rating since the shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I’d guess it’s probably around #3- #5 at worst.The problem that distorts this perception the most is that the US Navy has a carrier force greater than all of the rest of the world combined. That’s not hyperbole. Just counting carriers, and the aircraft they are capable of launching, the inflight refueling capabilities, and the airborne early warning and control aircraft (AWACS) the US could wipe out the world’s carrier forces. The other navies rely much more on destroyers, frigates, submarines, and smaller craft, but the US isn’t doing too badly on those elements, either.
Who was the most powerful nation after WW2?
The United States. 1) Yes, the USSR had bombs later on (which was after WWII, but it wasn't right AFTER WWII). That meant very little. We feared the Soviets back in the day because we did not know what they had. That "Iron Curtain" did a very good job of keeping information in. After communism collapsed, we discovered that almost all of our technology was superior, there was a comparatively low standard of living, drafted soviet troops were not of the highest caliber, occupied nations were unhappy and their manufacturing and resource management was significantly behind ours. They were powerful, but nothing compared to what we were doing. 2) The US is one of the only developed nations of the time that didn't suffer severe damage or a land war. No rebuilding, no cities in rubble, and a vastly expanded manufacturing capability during the war led to prosperity. 3) We didn't just have the bomb, we now had many allies. Prior to WWII, the USA was just a country. After WWII, the USA was largely respected and expanded its political influence substantially. Ever hear of NATO? The UN? Yeah, we ran that stuff. 4) We developed better military technology faster than other nations. We had nuclear submarines first, nuclear power plants, and a number of experimental technologies stolen from the Nazis (like jet engines and the V2 - which lead to ICBMs, fighter planes, and the Apollo missions). I'm not a super-nationalist touting the US just because I live there. Our technology (at least military technology), production capability, and military resources really are THE best. Military training is within the top few in the world and well beyond any nations that exclusively use drafted armies. The physically large country contains numerous resources within it and allows for numerous trade routes (the loss of no single port city, no single rail line could cause significant strategic damage). There are some screwed up things going on in the US right now, and it may not be the "best" country, but it is without question the most singularly "powerful" nation on Earth, has been since WWII, and will be until China improves its infrastructure.
How does Russia have such a powerful military with a defense budget of less than 12% of the USA?
Whilst measured in US dollars, the Russian Federation might appear to spend a pittance, this is not the best way to make a comparison. That’s largely because you need to look at purchasing power parity (what you get for each dollar-equivalent). Here there are massive differences.One way of looking at things is the % of GDP spent on defence. In the USA, it’s around 3.3% of GDP (it was over 8% in the 1960s). In comparison, the Russian Federation spends 5.4% of the economy on defence (back at the height of the cold war some estimated the USSR spent like 20% of GDP on defence - stats were not very reliable).In any event, the Russians devote more than half as much again of their economy to defence than does the USA. (Most other Western countries don’t even reach the 2% mark).The other critical issue is costs, and especially of manpower. The US has a volunteer army, navy and airforce. In consequence, they have very high manpower costs as those forces have to compete with terms in civilian employment. In contrast, the Russian Federation still used conscription and can retain large armed forces with much lower manpower costs. Even where they have professional forces, the level of pay and costs is much lower than in the USA.The cost structures also follow through in the arms industry - a dollar spent in Russian military research is going to buy you a whole lot more than it will in the USA with huge corporations employing extremely expensive western engineers.I should add this is not unusual - witness a comparison of the opposing armed forces in the Korean peninsular. North Korea has a vastly larger army, navy and airforce than does the South (albeit not always of great quality), and does it with a small fraction of the total GDP. However, it gets much more “bang for the buck” and can pay veritable peanuts for its personnel.Modern, affluent western powers will always struggle with this, especially as so much more of their state money has to be spent on social services of one sort or another. Voters in functioning democracies, especially with ageing populations, are rather keen on money being spent on their direct needs. More authoritarian regimes are rather less inclined to bend their spending priorities that way.