I'll make the argument that the question is not relevant insofar that Russia's military capabilities should properly be measured in comparison with other states rather than itself at two different periods of time. Military capabilities should also be analyzed within the context of the political outcomes pursued by war.
Here are some statistics:
o Since 1991, Russia has participated in ten (10) conflicts. Of these, seven (70%) ended in favorable conditions for Russia. Only one (10%) ended in defeat (First Chechen War). This compares with the 71.43% favorable rate of the U.S. in the same time period.
o Of the ten conflicts, half (50%) were external conflicts, and four (80%) of these ended on favorable terms, with one (20%) ending in a armistice (civil war in Tajikistan)
o In quantitatively measuring manpower, defense budget, power projection, and nuclear capabilities, Russia ranks #2 (18.25%) after the U.S. (30.34%).
o Russia ranks #1 (as of 2013) in the following quantitative factors of military capability: nuclear weapons and strategic bombers.
o It ranks #2 or #3 in the following: nuclear submarines (#2), strategic airlift (#2), amphibious landing ships (#3), and budget (#3).
The other factor to consider is the rate of growth in military capabilities - is it increasing or decreasing relative to U.S. or other major state capabilities? One of the major triggers of World War I was German intelligence assessments that despite the significant disparity between German and Russian military capabilities, Russian capabilities were increasing significantly faster than German capabilities. This created political pressure to attack Russia, or to at least treat it with hostility (and thereby increase insecurity in the international system). This is something that should also be considered in the modern context when assessing Russia's emergence from the shadow of the USSR and what it means for the U.S and international security.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks