为什么俄罗斯作为一个世界大国被严重低估？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：梧桐pasky-审核者：周天寰宇2------------

MaxathousandPegasus 4 days ago
Underrated by many: think tanks supposed experts normal people that comment on places like this. Ironically they also can't stop talking about Russia.

（俄罗斯）被许多国家低估了：智囊团、所谓的专家人士和普通人在这个论坛如此评论道。讽刺的是他们就是忍不住谈论俄罗斯。
（注：智囊团指与制定计划和策略有关，并且时常没有官方的或被承认的地位的专家教授们）

I say underrated because to me it's clear Russia along with China and the US are by far the three biggest players on the world stage. And the distance between them and everyone else is huge.

我说（俄罗斯）被低估了，是因为对我而言，俄罗斯、中国还有美国很明显是世界舞台上三个迄今为止最大的玩家。并且这三者与其他国家之间的差距都很大。

What these three countries have/do that others don't:
1.relatively independent military industrial complex
2.willingness to act unilaterally on the world stage
3.scale in people land and material

这三个国家已经做到/而其他国家还没有做到的：
1.相对独立的军工复合体；
2.愿意在世界舞台上独霸雄风；
3.人口、土地和资源规模大丰富。

Because Russia spends rubles to procure their military equipment their military budget is closer to 180 Billion dollars than the standard exchange rate.

因为俄罗斯在购买军事装备上花销巨大，所以（它的）军用预算比标准汇率更接近1800亿美元。

Russia's military is also built to be anti US/West. Powerful and large ground forces with advanced air defense systems. Unless the US is willing to send hundred of thousands of troops into Europe Russia would reach Germany before any real resistance during a war.

俄罗斯的军队是建来对抗美国/西方国家的。（俄罗斯拥有）强大且大型的地面部队以及先进的防空系统。在战争中，要是美国不愿意派遣成千上万的军队去欧洲，俄罗斯将会在真正的反抗还没到来之前，就攻占到德国。

Russia doesn't have old tech. Military tech is not like your iphone to be exchanged every other year. Carriers can last half a century. Tanks can be used for 30 years or more. A transport plane can be built in 1950 and as long as it's working it's a useful tool.

俄罗斯没有老牌技术。军事技术不像你的苹果手机那样每隔一年都会更换。航空母舰可以用半个世纪。坦克可以用30年以上。一架在1950年制造的运输飞机，只要它还可以运作，那就是有用的工具。

Russia and China are not on America's level but they are levels and levels above countries like UK and France the other majors powers.

俄罗斯和中国的水平比美国低，但是他们的水平高过像英国、法国等其他主要国家。

-------------译者：风沉沙凡-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

FlexibleResponse 114 points·4 days ago
Because Russia does not have the same long-term sustainability that the United States and China possess.
1.Relatively small economy (by GDP) in comparison to EU/US/PRC
2.Economy is not diversified and is reliant on fossil fuel exports
3.Limited strategic options in its own region in the face of a renewed NATO (after Crimean crisis)
4.Significant corruption that saps overall economic vitality
5.Small number of power projection units and capabilities
6.Demographic outlook post-2030 is dismal

因为俄罗斯不具备如美国和中国所拥有的长期可持续性。
1.跟欧洲/美国/中国相比，俄罗斯是相对较小的经济体（就GDP而言）；
2.经济体尚未多样化，依赖于化石燃料出口；
3.面对复兴的NATO（克里米亚危机之后），在其区域中战略选择有限；
4.严重的腐败吸食殆尽整体经济的活力；
5.少量的兵力投射部置和能力；
6.2030年后的人口前景暗淡。

KingOfBlingBling 9 points·4 days ago
“Demographic outlook post-2030 is dismal”
It would be nice for you or someone else to elaborate more on this

“2030年后的人口前景暗淡。”
如果你或者其他人能够详细说明一下这一点就好了。

FlexibleResponse 12 points·4 days ago
The population of Russia will start to shrink around that time period and continue to grow older relatively fast compared to other major countries like India and the United States. This leads to an unfavorable dependency ratio which can cause prolonged economic stagnation. As a result of an older population and economic stagnation tax revenues will fall.

与其他一些大国相比，比如印度和美国，在那段时期（2030年）俄罗斯的人口将开始骤减，并且老龄化现象将相对较快。这将会导致不利的抚养比率，这样的抚养比率会引发旷日持久的经济停滞。由于人口老龄化和经济停滞，税收收入将下降。

In a military perspective Russia will increase the use of conscxt soldiers. This is problematic because the Russian Army relies on contract (Volunteer) soldiers to fill its prime maneuver units (i.e Battalion Tactical Groups). Russia uses conscxtion because it wants to maintain a numerically large military comparable to the United States Armed Forces.

从军事的角度看，俄罗斯将增加使用征兵。这是有问题的，因为俄罗斯军队依赖合同（志愿）兵来满足其主要机动部队（即营战术小组）。俄罗斯采用士兵招募制，因为其想维持一支与美国军队相比数量上巨大的军队。

UnrepentantSaint 3 points·3 days ago
Perhaps Russia's shorter life expectancy is a feature and not a flaw in this situation. While the population will decrease its not likely their retirees will stick around as long as EU Chinese or American ones. A massive growing muslim population might be a more pressing concern in Russia particularly Moscow and the southern oblasts

也许在这种情况下，俄罗斯较短的预期寿命已是一个特色而不是缺点了。人口即将减少的同时，俄罗斯的退休人员不可能像欧洲、中国和美国退休人员一样在岗位上坚持同样长的时间。大量增长的穆斯林人口可能对俄罗斯来说是个更紧迫的问题，特别是对莫斯科和(俄罗斯共和国)南部的州而言。

guebja 6 points·4 days ago
Here's a list of countries by future population according to estimates by the UN Population Division using a medium fertility model.

根据联合国人口部门采用中等生育率概率的模型估计，这是各国未来人口的清单。

By 2050 Russia will have fallen from being the 9th most populous country in the world to being the 15th most populous going from 1.93% of the global population to 1.33% of the global population.

到2050年，俄罗斯将从世界第九大人口的国家下降到世界第15位，从占全球人口总量的1.93%下降到1.33%。

That alone would mean retaining power for Russia is an uphill battle simply because a smaller population makes it harder to have a large economy.

光这一点就意味着俄罗斯为保住权力将有一场艰苦的战斗要打，这仅因为较小的人口更难以拥有巨大的经济体。

Yet Russia faces another major problem in that its population pyramid isn't a pyramid with low fertility during the past 25 years having created a situation where adults greatly outnumber children and teens.

俄罗斯还面临着另外一个重大问题，因为其人口结构并不是金字塔形的。由于过去25年中较低的生育率，这导致成年人远多过于儿童和青年人的情况。

What that means is that for the next few decades Russia's looking at a relative decrease in working-age adults and a relative increase in dependents (retirees plus children if fertility recovers).

这意味着，在未来几十年，俄罗斯工作适龄人口将相对减少，同时受抚养人员（退休人员、以及若生育率回复，还有孩子）将会相对增加。

So the worker/dependent ratio is going to shift and not in Russia's favor.

因此工作人口/抚养人员比率将发生变化，且这对俄罗斯不利。

BlackBeardManiac 5 points·4 days ago
In short: It's population is in decline. Too few kids are born.

简言之：（俄罗斯）人口在下降，新生儿太少。

-------------译者：668-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

156mmm5 points·3 days ago
Great list but I would also add naval capability. To be a truly global superpower that is able to act in multiple worldwide theaters expeditionary naval capability is required. Acquiring an year-round ice free port has been a centuries long Russian project and a colossal failure. Russia has enough trouble operating a single capital ship in the Med; they have no global capabilities hence must be considered a regional power. Japan UK France China Brazil and arguably even South Korea and Singapore have as significant or more significant naval power projection capabilities. This is a huge weakness that necessarily relegates Russia to being a second rate power.

很好的列举清单，但我会加上海军实力这条。要成为一个真正的全球超级大国，能够在世界多个范围内军演，海军远征能力是非常必要的。获得一个终年无冰的港口是俄罗斯一个长达几个世纪的项目，也是一个巨大的失败。俄罗斯在地中海地区经营一艘大型军舰已经够困难的了。它没有全球能力，因此必须被视为区域强国。日本、英国、法国、中国、巴西甚至韩国和新加坡都拥有同样重要或更重要的海军力量投射能力。这是一个巨大的弱点，它必然使俄罗斯沦为二流强国。

crassuserx 65 points·4 days ago
“Small economy.”
Dude. South Korea has a larger nominal GDP than Russia.
As does Canada. 

“小型经济体。”
兄弟，韩国的名义GDP比俄罗斯高。加拿大也是。

RUSSIAN_BOT_840384 28 points·4 days ago
So does Italy with half the population
not to mention Russian economy is not diversified at allthey are still pretty dependant on oil.

意大利人口数量只有其一半，GDP也比俄罗斯高。更别提俄罗斯的经济不多样化，他们仍然相当依赖石油。

BlackBeardManiac 3 points·4 days ago·edited 4 days ago
So why are SK and Canada no great powers? Russia is undeniably a global player hard to ignore. I guess this discrepancy is what's at question here.

那么，为什么韩国和加拿大不是强国？不可否认地，俄罗斯是个让人难以忽视的全球玩家。我想这个差异矛盾就是问题所在。

Edit: I think I've misread the question. My take on it was more along the line: "Why is Russia a mayor power despite its low GDP".

另注：我想我误解了这个问题，我对此的角度更多是这样的：“为什么俄罗斯在GDP低的情况下仍是大国"。

deadjawa17 points·4 days ago
Canada isn’t because Canada doesn’t have an ambitious foreign policy. It relies (smartly) on the US as world and regional police. SK has genocidal maniac within shooting range of its major population center so it’s foreign policy focus is entirely on that.

加拿大不是强国是因为加拿大没有一个有野心的外交政策。它（聪明地）依赖美国作为世界和地区警察。韩国的主要人口中心在种族灭绝的疯子（金正恩）的打击射程范围内，所以它的外交政策的重点全是（朝鲜）。

Russia tends to try to be a foil to the US so it’s foreign policy seems more effective. But it cannot stand up to the US military directly. Only indirectly through proxies does it have any hope of disrupting US military power.

俄罗斯倾向于成为美国的陪衬，因此它的外交政策似乎更有效。但它不能直接对抗美军。只有间接地通过代理，它才有破坏美国军事力量的希望。

BlackBeardManiac 3 points·4 days ago
Russia tends to try to be a foil to the US
That's only the case because the US tries to prevent other powers from growing too strong/ expanding their sphere. I think Russias main obxtive is its own security.

“俄罗斯倾向于成为美国的陪衬....”
只能这样，因为美国试图阻止其他强国变得过于强大/扩张他们的势力范围。我认为俄罗斯的主要目的是它自己的安全。

ChornWork2 7 points·4 days ago
Russia isn't growing in any meaningful respect... it is continuing to languish. Without commodities wealth it would utterly collapse.

俄罗斯在任何有意义的方面上都没有增长....它还在继续衰弱。如果没有丰富的商品财富，它将彻底崩溃。

BlackBeardManiac 5 points·4 days ago
It's a market with a lot of potential for growth. Untaped ressources gigantic areas only waiting to be made accessible. It's connected by land with the EU and China... a common market from Lissabon to Vladivostok would boom for decades.

这是一个有很大增长潜力的市场，未开发的资源、广阔的地域干等着被人开采撷取。俄罗斯与欧盟和中国陆陆接壤...从里斯本到符拉迪沃斯托克的共同市场将在未来几十年内蓬勃发展。

-------------译者：虫虫啃书-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Zep_Rocko 9 points·4 days ago
It's not really in the SK or Canadian interest to be disruptive. They rely on the US for trade and security.

制造混乱是不符合韩国和加拿大的利益的，他们在贸易和安全问题上依赖美国。

catmeow321 3 points·4 days ago
South Korea and Canada is the size of a medium Chinese province or large US State or an medium EU member state in terms of population.

韩国和加拿大的人口规模相当于一个中国的中等省份，或是美国的一个大州，或者欧盟一个中等的成员国。

Russia is equivalent to multiple medium Chinese provinces multiple US States and multiple EU member states.

俄罗斯等同于数个中国的中等省份，数个美国的州和数个欧盟成员国。

TLDR: SK and Canada are average population sizes. Middle power population sizes.

简言之，韩国和加拿大是中等国家的平均人口规模。

IndoAryaI 4 points·4 days ago
Russia's GDP (PPP) is the 5th/6th largest in the world.

俄罗斯的GDP (PPP)世界上排第5/6位的。

I wouldn't go all too much by nominal wrt Russia considering the fluctuation of the exchange rates.
Nominal GDP comes up especially short with regards to Russia's military its key geopolitical tool.

考虑到汇率的浮动，我不会过多地探讨俄罗斯的名义GDP。名义GDP的增长对于俄罗斯军事力量的影响微不足道，而军事力量是该国的主要地缘政治工具。

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/part-2-how-much-did-rafale-actually-cost.html - each Rafale cost the Indian Air Force around $165-170M (inc. upgrades)

每架阵风战斗机要花费印度空军大约1.65-1.7亿美元。



http://ajaishukla.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/hal-offers-40-more-sukhoi-30s-at-one.html - each Su-30MKI (upgraded) costs the Indian Air Force around $70-75M.

每架苏-30多用途战机（升级版）要花费印度空军约7000-7500万美元。



For every 2 Rafales you could purchase 5 Su-30MKIs (upgraded to the point of being on par with the Su-35S). I don't know about you but there's a lot more I could achieve with 5 upgraded Su-30MKIs than 2 Rafales. Of course extrapolate that and you'll understand the power of PPP.

用两架阵风战斗机的价钱，你可以购买5架苏-30多用途战机（升级到与苏-35战斗机相同的标准）。我不知道你的想法，但是我可以用5架升级过的苏-30多用途战机比用2架阵风战斗机完成更多的任务。当然，根据这一点你就能够理解PPP（购买力平价）的力量了。

And bear in mind this is export too it's cheaper for Russia. Wouldn't be surprised for every F-35 they could purchase 3 Su-30SMs or Su-35s.

且记住这也是出口价格，而俄罗斯购买会更便宜。用每架F-35的价格，他们可以购买3架苏-30战斗机或苏-35战斗机。



（图为F-35战斗机）

ChornWork2 12 points·4 days ago
PPP vs nominal is meaningful when comparing quality of life but if you're comparing heft of relatively size of economies it is nominal that matters. Sure one can normalize for short-term FX fluctuations but PPP is simply not the right metric in this context.

在比较生活质量时，PPP（购买力平价）比名义GDP更有意义，但如果你比较的是经济体的相对规模的重要性，那么名义GDP比较重要。确实（PPP）能标准化短期外汇波动，但购买力平价在这个语境下并不是正确的度量标准。

In any event Russia is <2% of the world's economy and the only reason it has a hefty military is for legacies reasons + waay overspending on military versus investing in their country.

在任何情况下俄罗斯占世界经济中的比例都小于2%，而它拥有庞大军队的唯一原因是遗产的缘故再加上在军事上花费过度，并没有将支出用于投资他们的国家。

catmeow321 3 points·4 days ago
PPP is for individual quality of life (cost of living)
Nominal is for how powerful the country is because exchange rates is a dimension of trade power.

购买力平价是指个人的生活质量（即生活成本）。名义GDP是衡量这个国家有多强大，因为外汇汇率是体现贸易强国的一个方面。

RUSSIAN_BOT_840384 9 points·4 days ago
PPP is not a good way to look at comparing different economies at all.You should compare by nominal in which Russia ranks 12

购买力平价不是一种比较不同经济体的好途径，你应该用名义GDP进行比较，照这种方式俄罗斯排名第12位。

-------------译者：HSQfor_future-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

pbrand 15 points·4 days ago
I agree. PPP is good for comparing standard of living for citizens but gross product is a better yardstick for international matters since it's not about the individual it's about the mass of money that can be dedicated to any one foreign policy task.

我同意。虽然PPP（购买力平价）用于比较国民生活标准还可以，但是GDP（国内生产总值）在国际事务上是一套更好的尺度标准，因为它无关乎个人，而是与可用于支撑俄罗斯外交政策的资金息息相关。
 
IndoAryaI  2 points·4 days ago
What are you talking about? Nominal is extremely susceptible to exchange rate fluctuations. Equalising it via PPP gives an insight as to how Russia is able to project power.

您在扯犊子呢？名义GDP极易受到汇率波动的影响。用购买力平价来对它进行调整可使我们明白俄罗斯是如何投射力量的。

Military see Crimea and Syria and agitations in Baltic/North Sea is one of Russia's key geopolitical tools. Nominal GDP comparisons are invalid when you can buy near 3 Su-30s/Su-35s for the price of 1 F-35 that's where PPP comes into play.

从军事上看，克里米亚、叙利亚和波罗的海/北海的动荡不过是俄罗斯的重要地缘政治工具之一。当你能用买一架F-35战斗机的钱购买到将近三架苏-30/苏-35战斗机时，比较名义GDP毫无用处，而这时PPP就派上用场了。

It's not to say that PPP is the be all and end all both measurements have their flaws but to base Russia's power solely on their "nominal GDP" prowess is silly.

PPP并非完美无瑕，且这两种尺度都各有它们的缺陷，但只通过名义GDP来判断俄罗斯的国力是十分愚蠢的。
 
RUSSIAN_BOT_8403845 points·4 days ago
I am not saying that you should only choose nominal though but at the same time PPP is only used for certain situations and the fact that comparing different countries economies Nominal GDP is definitely a much better system

我并不是说你只能选择名义GDP，而是说PPP只能用于特定情况，而且事实上用名义GDP比较各国经济无疑是个更好的体系。
 
IndoAryaI -2 points·4 days ago
So you're literally agreeing with me.

所以实际上你是认同我的观点的。
 
RUSSIAN_BOT_840384 4 points·4 days ago
No
You said
“Russia's GDP (PPP) is the 5th/6th largest in the world.”
“I wouldn't go all too much by nominal wrt Russia considering the fluctuation of the exchange rates.”
Thats false I agree that PPP is also slightly helpful to look at(only in certain situations) but if you are comparing economies between countries nominal GDP is much much more useful and gives a better picture

非也。
你刚才说：“俄罗斯的GDP(PPP)在世界上排第五/六名。”“考虑到汇率波动，我不会过多地探讨俄罗斯的名义GDP。”
这是错的。我同意PPP也有些小帮助（仅限特定情况），但如果你要比较各国经济，那么名义GDP更更更有用，而且能给出更好的图景。
 
IndoAryaI 1 point·4 days ago
I'm going to have to back out of this because all I'm getting is "nominal is much much much better" without any specific reasoning to the topic at hand Russia's geopolitical prowess and Russia's economy.

我放弃了，因为我从你这儿得到的所有信息只有“名义GDP更更更好”，却没给出任何具体的理由来解释眼下的主题——“俄罗斯的地缘政治和经济实力”。

To say PPP is only "slightly helpful" in assessing Russia's economic/geopolitical prowess is downright inaccurate or ignorant.

你说PPP在评价俄罗斯的经济/地缘政治实力时仅是“有点帮助”，这不是彻头彻尾的偏见就是彻头彻尾的无知。
 
RUSSIAN_BOT_840384 5 points·4 days ago
It is not.Also I never said geopolitical power but I was only talking about economical power.

非也。另外，我从来没提到地缘政治实力，我只是在说经济实力。

It is completely fair to say that Russias economy is small especially considering its size and that nominal GDP is better at measuring it

可以很公平地说，俄罗斯的经济总量就其规模来说很小，所以用名义GDP来衡量更好。
 
lowlandslinda 2 points·4 days ago
That is exactly the point nominal GDP is what matters when you want to sell products on the international market. "PPP" GDP artificially inflates the output of countries and makes it seem like they are outputting more than they really are.

这正是问题的重点。当你想在国际市场上贩卖产品时名义GDP至关重要，PPP人为地夸大了国家的产出，使得一个国家看上去输出了与实际相比更多的产品。

-------------译者：HSQfor_future-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Jeebzus2014 17 points·4 days ago
Russia is weighted at an appropriate level considering the following:
1.When compared to NATO 1/5th the population 1/8th the GDP (roughly)
2.MIC is challenged with sanctions and political obstruction vs USA/Frn/UK
3.No global tech companies or real tech industry compared to the west
4.Regional player limited extended expeditionary capability
5.One old and almost out of repair carrier from the Soviet unx in service
6.Limited military modernization in the last 30 years (relative to NATO)
7.Heavy land force development but very limited air superiority capability
8.PAK-FA isn't produce in meaningful numbers or fully developed yet (5+yrs)
9.Declining population in to the foreseeable future
10.Declining GDP medium term long term prospects are better though
11.Economy heavily depended on commodity prices (mil. budget based on oil)
12.Conscxts only have 1 year of training

考虑到以下因素，俄罗斯已经得到了合适的评价：
1.与北约相比，人口为其五分之一，GDP为其八分之一（大概）；
2.军工复合体被来自美英法的制裁和政治阻挠所挑战；
3.没有可与西方比肩的全球性科技公司或真正的科技产业；
4.是区域性玩家，（扩展军队）远征能力有限；
5.只有一艘还在服役的承袭自苏联的快无法维修的航母； 
6.过去30年军事现代化发展有限（相比于北约）；
7.陆军有长足进步，但空中优势十分有限；
8.苏霍伊T-50战斗机（苏霍伊航空多用途前线战斗机）数量尚未成规模，而且技术尚不成熟（还需5年以上）；
9.在可预见的将来，人口不断下降；
10.尽管中长期前景不错，GDP值仍不断减少；
11.经济非常依赖大宗商品行情（军费预算取决于石油出口）；
12.义务兵役受训仅一年；
 
ChornWork2 22 points·4 days ago
Not remotely 1/8th of GDP of Nato... US and non-US Nato each have GDP ~$18trillion Russia has $1.2 trillion. NATO's GDP is 30x Russia's... and China's is almost 10x.

其（GDP）并非约为北约的八分之一……美国与非美国北约盟国各月有18万亿美元的GDP，俄罗斯只有1.2万亿美元。北约的GDP是俄罗斯的30倍........或者是中国的10倍。
 
AK-40oz 27 points·4 days ago
Russia has one decrepit aircraft carrier the main tool of power projection.

俄罗斯有一艘老旧的航母作为其主要的军力投射工具。

Russia may have tanks and guns and bodies but it has nearly zero capability to project and sustain an intervention outside of its immediate circle of influence. Their minimalist intervention in Syria combined with their shadow war on the western border has stretched them quite thin.

俄罗斯也许有坦克、步枪和血肉之躯，但是它几乎没有能力投送并维持一支干涉军到其直接势力圈以外的地方。它们实行极简风格的叙利亚干涉军与它们在西部边境的影子战争已使他们消耗过大（军力）变得薄弱。

Defensively yes. Major power. Offensively in a traditional 20th century ground war major power. In reality in terms of global influence and capabilities minor power.
Nukes are the only reason Russia still matters at all.

以支持的口吻说，是的，（俄罗斯是个）主要大国。以反对的口吻说，在传统的20世纪地面战争中，（俄罗斯也是个）主要大国。事实上，就全球影响和能力而言，（俄罗斯是个）次要大国。拥有核弹是俄罗斯仍然重要的唯一原因。
 
IndoAryaI 5 points·4 days ago
“Russia has one decrepit aircraft carrier the main tool of power projection.”
Except their aircraft carrier wasn't their main tool of power projection in Syria or Crimea.

“俄罗斯有一艘老旧的航母作为其主要的军力投射工具。”
只不过它们的航母在叙利亚或克里米亚不是其主要的军力投射工具。

Being connected via land mass or in close proximity especially considering Russia is the epitome of Eurasia trumps ACs. 

（俄罗斯）通过陆地或近距离（与他国）连接，尤其应该考虑到俄罗斯地跨欧亚。

-------------译者：HSQfor_future-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

catmeow321 5 points·4 days ago
Syria is close to Russian border. Any father Russia wouldn't be a player. Like in Libya Russia was unseen.

叙利亚离俄罗斯边界很近，再远的地方俄罗斯就鞭长莫及了。例如在利比亚，俄罗斯完全不见踪影。
 
not_ur_lawyer 6 points·4 days ago
Just to add to what people have said here Russia's military capabilities are way oversold. They don't have old tech but they don't have reliable tech either. And if you look at their military spending their tech is not being upkept meaning that in 10 years they are going to be in the position of none of their tech working because no one is doing maintenance on it.

对之前的评论做些补充：俄罗斯的军事实力被远远高估。它们没有老牌技术，但也没有可靠技术。如果你检视它们的军费开支，你会发现它们的技术并没有得到维护，这意味着十年内它们将步入没有技术可用的窘境，因为没人维护这些技术。
 
AyyyMycroft 11 points·4 days ago
Russia is #4 in military spending and [#12 or #13 in GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)).

俄罗斯军费开支排世界第4[GDP排第12或13]。

This begs the question "Why does Russia spend so much on its military?" Or conversely "Why do the other large economies have such small militaries?" The answer is that the top 11 large economies all have long coastlines with many warm-water ports and so all 11 of the top world economies have the USA as one of their top 3 trade partners and all except Italy and South Korea have USA as #1 or #2. In other words the #3 through #11 economies of the world are on good terms with the USA and are quite happy to let the US shoulder the military burdens of ensuring free trade and international security so long as they get a seat at the US-led table.

这就带来一个问题，“为什么俄罗斯花这么多钱在军事上？”或者从反面说，“为什么其他大型经济体拥有如此少的军队？”答案是前11大经济体都拥有漫长的海岸线和许多暖水港，并且美国都是他们排名前三的贸易伙伴。除了意大利和韩国，美国在剩余9国是数一数二的贸易伙伴。换句话说，从第3到第11大经济体都和美国保持着良好关系，并且只要它们能在美国主导的餐桌上有一席之地，它们就都十分乐意让美国肩负起军事的重担，以确保自由贸易和国际安全。

Russia has limited port access and so most of its trade partners are overland. The USA is barely even in the list of Russia's top 10 trading partners. Russia could stop trade with the US and be pretty much OK. That independence gives Russia the option of pursuing a foreign policy that is not only independent of Washington but starkly opposed to Washington in many cases. Russia acts unilaterally but Russia is still just a middle power. Zimbabwe acts unilaterally but that doesn't make Zimbabwe powerful. Unilateral action is not power. GDP is power.

俄罗斯的港口通道很有限，所以它的大多数贸易伙伴都是经由陆路。美国几乎要掉出俄罗斯前十的贸易伙伴名单。俄罗斯可以中断与美国的贸易，对其经济并无影响。这样的独立性允许俄罗斯奉行不仅独立于华盛顿，而且能直接反制华盛顿的外交政策。俄罗斯以单边主义行事，但它依然只是个中等强国。津巴布韦也奉行单边主义，但这没有使其强大起来。单边行为不是实力，GDP才是实力。
 
Ranteralot 7 points·4 days ago
I am so confused why everyone is saying that nominal GDP is a better example than PPP in the case the OP presented. Russian military industrial complex is mostly domestic so the use of nominal number for expenditures would be extremely misleading. PPP would present a far more accurate picture as the vast majority of the spending is domestic not foreign. Otherwise we would need to accept that Saudi Arabia is far more powerful than Russia as all the nominal numbers suggest just that.

我被搞糊涂了，为什么每个人都说按贴主表述的情况，名义GDP比PPP更好。俄罗斯军工复合体基本面向国内，所以在支出上用名义GDP判断极具误导性。PPP会展现一个更准确的诠释，因为俄罗斯的绝大多数开销在于国内而非国外。否则我们就得承认沙特阿拉伯远比俄罗斯强大，因为两国的名义GDP数字支持了这个观点。

As to the questions of OP I don't believe Russia has an independent future anymore. All of its "sphere of influence" prospects will be swallowed up by EU USA and China. Russia will still be one of the more powerful European countries but prospects for independent unilateral actions will diminish with every decade. Russian strategy today revolves around positioning itself to be the kingmaker of the future not a super power.

至于对贴主提出的问题，我不相信俄罗斯会有一个独立自主的未来。它的“势力范围”将会被欧盟、美国和中国分食。俄罗斯仍然会是强大的欧洲国家之一，但是独立自主的前景和单边行为将随着时间流逝不断减少。如今俄罗斯的战略围绕着其对自我的定位来运行——俄罗斯今后是想成为“拥立国王者”，而非一个超级大国。