Slashdot Mirror
US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty
reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware. Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"
They aren't even a superpower anymore.
Dear United States of America and Russian Federation, your new enemies are China, North Korea and various countries in the Middle East.
Sign peace treaties between you two but don't disarm yourselves, the wolves are watching.
Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good. I wonder how McCain/Palin would've handled the situation.
Max.
Boy would that stink if I can't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn.
Sorry, I have to speak an unspeakable Truth here.
We shouldn't be negotiating treaties with Russia anymore. Two equally good reasons:
1.We aren't enemies anymore. Right?
2.Russia wouldn't be a threat to us anyway. They are a third world country with some residual nukes from a day when they were a second world country with nukes. They haven't had the resources to maintain their conventional army, odds are they haven't had any better luck maintaining the nukes so they probably wouldn't even go foom!
We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.
Democrat delenda est
Assuming their nuclear arsenal is at the caps mentioned in this article, I'd say they're super power enough.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
They aren't even a superpower anymore.
And with all the debt and the recent economic failure of US, it seems they aren't either. China on the other hand..
China is no superpower and the US remains one.
China has very limited abilities to project power. Russia currently has only the ability to project a few bombers and a couple warship a few thousand miles. On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Chinese military power projection is very limited, a handful of nuclear subs, most of which spend years at dock between deployments, no carriers and they lack the capability to move land forces across the Straights of Taiwan.
The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers, 8 amphibious assault ships, dozens of bombers capable of deployment in a few hours notice, the ability to deploy paratroopers, helicopter assault forces or Marines anywhere on the planet in 2-3 days.
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!
In other news mr Kim is planning a nuclear war with his southern neighbors...
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Since 744 B-52's were produced I have to assume that number was derived to match the US's current heavy bomber fleet.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I would be more impressed if they could agree on a way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons!
My user ID is a palindrome!
On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Are you seriously saying that a superpower is only a superpower if they go having wars around the world all the time? If my country were in a constant war with everyone all around the world and had troops deployed all the time, I would feel ashamed and a bully, not a "superpower".
I'm sure both Russia and China are capable of deploying all around the world in a few days. Just because they don't usually do that but are a peace-loving countries, doesn't mean they cant.
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
Russia agreeing to reduce nukes may mean they have become more confident in their conventional weapons capacity, unlike in the 90s when their economy was in free fall.
Still nuke reduction is a good thing, I suppose.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I know, and without the ability to project power the People's Liberation Army will sit in the People's Republic and polish their QBZ-95s.
If the PLA could project power they would be in Taipei right now.
"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
So now if a nuclear war happens, it won't be that bad.
Those numbers don't really mean much. Saddam Hussein had the second largest army in 1990 (yes even bigger than ours), but we beat it in just five days. Just like in manufacturing, it's the technology that matters more than the number of men.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."
Russia no longer has a leading position, its in the G8 sure and on UNSC, but it is failing. China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
They can not however project power. China and Russia lack sealift and airlift.
China can't get forces to Taiwan, they sure couldn't get PLA forces to San Diego if they wanted to. On the other hand the US could get Marines to Hong Kong in a few days.
"BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The People's Liberation Army?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!"
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
An important thing to note here is that a busy military is an experienced military. It may not be wonderful what they do, but these low level conflicts do test new technology and tactics.
For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs. This is known as MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Each one can be aimed at different target. Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?
Thanks.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
The question is how long will this advantage last? China seems on track to beat US GDP in twenty years. At that point, even if GDP per capita is lower than in the US, China will have the economic advantage. They can then play catch up on terms advantageous to themselves rather than merely deploy modest counters to US power.
Sucks for us that Russia will get credit for reducing its old poorly-maintained aresenal, much of which they'd have to get rid of anyway. With this treaty, we're scrapping our cherry nukes while Russia scraps some rusty clunkers.
Fair :)
Unless the world economy collapses worse, or the Chinese economy collapses, which is looking more and more likely.
If all those soldiers actually left China, there would be a revolution.
No matter how much the US and Russia limit their stockpiles of this and that, we'll still both be able to blow the world up a few times over, so this is really all pointless. I'd rather make sure and keep a healthy supply of nukes for when the big asteroid comes.
Try hours for Hong Kong, there's this large base just across the sea of Japan....
My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates, and officers who aren't afraid to turn their keys. They come after superpowers with MIRVs, next thing you know they'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax. I need that. For duck huntin'.
(Don't mod unless you know what sarcasm is, and have watched every episode of Futurama at least twice).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Unless the world economy collapses worse, or the Chinese economy collapses, which is looking more and more likely.
It doesn't look more likely than my scenario and a collapse doesn't mean that my scenario fails.
I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.
How quickly “people” (or rather cattle) forget...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
In modern warfare, numbers aren't that important anymore. It's all about force multipliers. The United States may have a (comparable) small military, true, but even the lowliest of their grunts is a highly trained and well equipped specialist. Just look at the last few wars the US has fought in (and I mean *actual* wars, not peacekeeping/stabilizing which involves fighting guerillas) - every time, relatively few US troops have inflicted major casualties with minor losses.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Obama planning to cut nuclear arms. Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs.
"The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers, 8 amphibious assault ships, dozens of bombers capable of deployment in a few hours notice, the ability to deploy paratroopers, helicopter assault forces or Marines anywhere on the planet in 2-3 days."
Which accomplishes WHAT?
While U.S.A. continues to suffer job loss, infrastructure decay, decreased civil rights, the Af-Pak-Iraqistan wars,
a healthcare system that makes companies with large
U.S.A workforce uncompetitive versus other OECD countries, and general overall economic decline. .
Enjoy your boiling frog collapse!
Yours In Astrakhan,
K. Trout
The original nomenclature was "First World" to refer to the West vs. "Second World" to refer to the Communist Soviet Union and Eastern Block.
"Third World" meant the others caught between the 1st and 2nd world's power struggle during the Cold war. (i.e., the places where proxy wars/struggles between the West and Communists were taking place...like Vietnam, Latin America, Middle East, Africa, etc.) The 3rd world countries were being lobbied with military/political/economic/etc. pressure by the 1st and 2nd worlds to choose a side.
The terms 1st world/2nd world/3rd world had nothing to do with the human development index you linked to. The term 3rd world came to be associated with poverty because...well, let's face it...the places that were used as pawns and proxy battles between the 1st and 2nd world are the ones vulnerable to such pressure -- meaning weak...usually poverty being a staple element.
So Russia is _by definition_ second world...impossible for it to be 1st world or 3rd world, no matter how rich or how poor they get. 1st world and 3rd world are not terms for describing the Human Development Index, but rather find their root in the cold war terminology.
Well, I do think that also has a lot to do with the USA being the one declaring war and thus setting the day and time of the first strike. I just can't see any country bomb the hell out of China before invading without getting hurt on their soil. For example in 1990 and the latest Iraq war, the USA used bombers to take out all the important infrastructure. After that it's just mobbing up what's still waiving with weapons. But I do agree that numbers aren't everything and that a relative small force of well-trained soldiers with good information and a weaponadvantage can take out a much larger army.
Congress calls Iraq a war, so that counts.
How did the multipliers work out there ?
China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
- so you think that China has a bubble economy then? The country where most of the worlds manufacturing capacity is concentrated? The country that is actively buying assets in forms of commodities, lands, mines, all over the world? Country with the fastest growing consumer population?
Wow, I wonder what constitutes a growing success in your book?
You can't handle the truth.
so you think that China has a bubble economy then? The country where most of the worlds manufacturing capacity is [being] concentrated? The country that is actively buying assets in forms of commodities, lands, mines, all over the world? Country with the fastest growing consumer population?
You just described a bubble. Congratulations.
BTW, arguing with rhetoric and thinly veiled personal accusations only makes your argument appear weaker.
Arguing while 'Anonymous Coward' means you have no argument at all, how about that rhetoric?
China has a growing economy. Bubble is when there is pressure applied forcefully that causes a sector or more than one sector to concentrate resources that in reality will produce no economic outcome and eventually collapse. Bubbles are produced mostly by debt based consumption and money printing.
Growing economy is the kind of economy that produces not the one that consumes. China is a producer first, but now it is also becoming a consumer.
A bubble? Wake me up when they start printing money away, wake me up when their trade balance shifts in favor of other countries.
You can't handle the truth.
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.
The modern US military has extremely powerful force multipliers. A squad of guys (8-16) today is roughly equivalent to something like 30-100 soldiers during WWII. No joke. And generally speaking, much of N. Korea's tech base hasn't evolved much since the Korean war. Sure they have pockets of their own special forces with modern weapons, but by in large, most of their forces are still using modernized WWII to Vietnam era weaponry; reflective of accuracy and capability. In a nut shell, when compared to modern US forces, China's force is VERY ROUGHLY comparable to 100,000 US troops.
You need to remember, with one ground spotter, one airplane, and one cluster bomb, the US Air Force can take out an entire armored division of armor. Literally. To date, only one has actually been used in combat. It was dropped in Iraq. Ponder that for a second or two. That's what force multipliers are all about.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China. That's not to say there wouldn't be deaths on the Western's side, but China is far from the big, nasty, million-man-plus boogy man everyone tries to make him out to be. In a toe to toe with the West, China would be missing its toes, feet, and ankles really quickly. And if you can't stand...you've lost.
I agree. If I had it my way, we'd bring home our troops from whatever 130 countries home immediately!
Pretty well afaict, afaict there are far more enemies dying than there are people dying on our side.
The real problem in iraq was not winning the war itself, it's dealing with the mess left behind afterwards. That costs more lives than many of us westerners are willing to stomach for a war we see as having little direct affect on us (but still not very many compared to other wars).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers...
Surely 120 nukes are cheaper than 10 carriers...and there goes American firepower projection.
Under the guidelines of conventional warfare it is easy to see China as weaker than the US and Russia.
The Chinese govt has no desire to get into a conventional or nuclear fight with anyone. Or waste time building up a massive and expensive conventional fighting force to directly compete with Russia or the US. Especially when there are better strategies.
The Chinese govt learned something when the US developed the first atomic weapons. At the time the US had a new weapon system that trumped everything that came before it. The US instantly had the ability to force any nation into defeat simply by the threat of what it could do. History has been shaped by the people who have developed superior weapons compared to what already existed.
So China is a country that graduates thousands of engineers every year of which some will have the genius to develop the next weapon that makes all existing weapons obsolete. And when that happens do you think the Chinese government will be 'nice' like the US was back in 1945? Or allow the rest of the world to catch up to make things fair again? Why get into a fist fight with Mike Tyson if you have a gun? It's a simple yet brilliant strategy.
Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe? Why do you think the US tries to maintain military superiority...just for show but without any force behind the threat? The US has already invaded and dominated one neighbour of China in the past decade on the flimsiest of pretenses (Afghanistan) and has bombed parts of another (Pakistan), and has more than once threatened to invade one of China's few allies (North Korea). But China hasn't come within an ocean's breadth of the mainland US. If China set themselves on a path toward military dominance, why wouldn't the US take action before China reached it? I mean, if you're playing a game of chess and you see your enemy has a chance to take a dominant position, why wouldn't you do something about it before they took it, rather than after? So for example, if China inclined themselves toward setting up military bases in Cuba or Venezuala, don't you think the US would prefer to invade these countries and set up their own puppet states before China ever set up those bases? If China sent a carrier group (they don't even have a single carrier yet, indeed just building one may be enough for the US to take military action against China -- note this need not be direct military action, but could be arming East Turkestan nationalists, or invading North Korea, or arming and backing the ROC in a declaration of independence, which would hurt the PRC's legitimacy and air of authority greatly) to a few dozen miles off the coast of California and started performing war games and demanding that their ships be allowed to dock in San Fransisco (the US does this frequently to China), then the US would probably send an intervening force.
But it's not like that. Markets are open to the Chinese and they are becoming more prosperous for it, and with this prosperity, they don't want to go to war with the US. So they are not trying to become militarily dominant so as to provoke the US.
Too bad they threw the Eastern Europeans under the bus to get this far.
Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe?
Yes. Because it is already happening to a limited extent.
But it's not like that. Markets are open to the Chinese and they are becoming more prosperous for it, and with this prosperity, they don't want to go to war with the US. So they are not trying to become militarily dominant so as to provoke the US.
Just because there's no military value for China to start and lose a near future arms race, doesn't mean that conditions won't change. My take is that in twenty years, they will change.
It's only a bubble if it's hollow.
China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
- so you think that China has a bubble economy then?
It's a currency bubble; the Chinese government is keeping the yuan artificially low vs. the dollar. Plus they're building bogus empty cities in the desert to prop up their GDP.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Earlier this week Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year.
So if they stick to that, how could it end? Well, badly. I just hope common sense breaks out at some point.
Prevent Windows piracy. Use Linux instead.
It should be worth noting that China will not go to war with the US, and that the US will not got to war with China. I mean, these are among the largest nations on earth. We already saw what happened during the Cold War where US and Russia were at each others throat. Talk about a dicey situation! I think (or hope) that the great titan nations have learned to never fight each other. Such a war would lead to a tit-for-tat situation for generations that would dwarf what's happening between Israel and Palestine.
Basically, it would be foolish for the superpower nations to fight amongst each other. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose.
Life is not for the lazy.
That's a really backwards statement. 'It may not be wonderful what they do' = Pointlessly killing and dying in places like Iraq and El Salvador.
Obviously we should have a military able and capable of defense, but the idea (implied in your statement) that the only way to do this is to accept the 'collateral damage' and the deaths of our own soldiers in 'low level conflicts' (a vague term, which could cover humanitarian interventions or the invasion or Iraq, which was not so low level!) is obscene. There's also a disturbing eagerness, almost a desire, in your post for the next 'high level conflict.'
I guess you haven't bought ammo then have you?
And yet our superpower military status comes at a high domestic cost. Also, China could probably put us in the shitter with economic or information warfare, if they so choose. Seems like a pretty good asymmetrical form of power projection to me.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China
Is it really that big of an issue though these days? Wouldn't sending in drop shipments or using captured enemy weapons/ammo suffice in a time of need? Or is the limitation troop location and training of foreign weaponry?
Life is not for the lazy.
Yes, China has a bubble.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031002636.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032503777.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/global/05yuan.html
Of course, we realize that the US ruling political group needs this agreement just because its anti-missile shield can handle only a certain limit of missiles simultaneously.
So they want to make their anti-missile shield more effective to re-play this one way or another: http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/b_Stalin_era/b_Yalta/Images/march.jpg Those who will own the vast resources of the immense landmass of Siberia will have a strategic advantage in global economy. It is just the matter of time.
I think the government of RF still agreed on it just to reduce the risk of an accident similar to 9/11, when some terrorists get control of nuclear missiles and then make some bad unpredictable thing with it. It is still easier to guard 1500 warheads than 2500.
But it is also clear that this is just a temporal measure. The real global security could provided by moving to more fair world with co-development, compulsory elementary education, total global access to health-care, clean water, housing, integration, etc.
Bullshit. Recent adventures around the world have shown that US troops are not as well-trained s they could be, and in fact that the US military relies on equipment more than training, preferring to throw money at a problem rather than time and effort. The US soldier of old might have been something special, but these days they most certainly are not.
Nice! So ICBM's don't count as power projection?
And the other thing. Even in the soviet days USSR had no strategy on projecting massive forces anywhere in the world. US on the other hand has basically troops in every region. And US is the only country to have such a wide network of foreign bases. And people in the US wonder where do people get their hatred of US from?
Sure, there are places where such bases are logical and beneficial, but there are a lot more that are remnants of the cold war.
Russian military and military equipment is, with very few exceptions, concentrated on defence.
They don't have a "bubble", they have something drastically opposite. The thing that most articles fail to note, that Chinese actually save money rather than spend money. So if that inverse-bubble inflates, they end up richer and would buy up more stuff.
That's a really backwards statement. 'It may not be wonderful what they do' = Pointlessly killing and dying in places like Iraq and El Salvador.
It's a correct statement. I don't care whether you think it backwards or not. And as far as I know, the US military hasn't been in El Salvador except possibly as trainers.
Obviously we should have a military able and capable of defense, but the idea (implied in your statement) that the only way to do this is to accept the 'collateral damage' and the deaths of our own soldiers in 'low level conflicts' (a vague term, which could cover humanitarian interventions or the invasion or Iraq, which was not so low level!) is obscene. There's also a disturbing eagerness, almost a desire, in your post for the next 'high level conflict.'
Then don't accept it. Sure, the invasion of Iraq was not "low level" with massive, intense fighting. The occupation of Iraq was low level. Even the Fallujah fighting was on the order of a few thousand insurgents. My supposed "eagerness" for war is solely in your perception. I don't look forward to conflict.
The point I was making is that the US military is one of the most experienced militaries in the world. That is large part of why the US has retained superpower status. And these conflicts tend to keep the US military this way.
China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads. The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Japan has found Uranium up there, and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is it really that big of an issue though these days?
Yes. You don't transport ammunition with airplanes, you transport it with ships.
Wouldn't sending in drop shipments or using captured enemy weapons/ammo suffice in a time of need?
No. Ammunition is HEAVY. A single artillery shell is around 100 pounds. Now imagine you have a battery of 8 guns, firing 2 rounds a minute. That's around 1 ton of ammunition a minute. Now, mortar shells are lighter, (3-5 pounds), but you have many more mortars than artillery guns and a higher rate of fire, (20-30 rounds/minute). Same with assault weapons - way lighter ammunition, per round, but many more weapons to supply. So, you can drop ammunition in, and it is definitely better than not having anything to shoot, but it isn't sustainable.
Or is the limitation troop location and training of foreign weaponry?
Moving troops is extremely hard. Unless you have total air superiority, you can't fly them around and you can't openly move them in trucks. Which means spreading trucks out, taking back routes that might not be monitored and otherwise going slow. Of course, that's still faster than having them walk - but many more will be killed en route.
Properly training with a weapon takes time. The M-16 qualification in the US Marine Corps takes 2 weeks. One week of classes and dry firing, and another week at the firing range. However, that doesn't take into account any "combat firing" which would include unknown distances, moving targets, shooting while moving, low-light situations, gas masks or using coordinated firing. From my experience, it takes about a year of regular training, (a couple days a month), to get a "mastery" with the weapon. Some people get there faster, and some never get that level of skill - barely qualifying even after years of training.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
So China has a 4:1 man advantage. In the second opium war, China had a 10:1 man advantage over France and Britain, and still lost hopelessly. Don't underestimate the effect of technology and experience. China has millions of troops who have never seen a war and an organisation which has never been tested.
I didn't knew that about the opium war. Thanks, very informative. Gonna look that one up.
The projection of military power is not just about Carriers and assault ships. More important then the hardware is the logistics and training. Russia has this, China does not, thus Russia is still able to project power especially in their sphere of influence (Central Asia and Eastern Europe). Russia's army can be moved, fed and replenished far from Russian borders, China's army however is not trained nor equipped to operate outside China's borders, even if China had 5 nuclear powered carriers they do not posses the logistics capacity required to operate them (how many tenders in the US fleet, how many base sharing arrangements does the US have with other governments).
Even the Euro-powers have a far greater capacity to project power, despite only having a few outdated fleet carriers and a few light carriers (most light carriers are in the RN) they have a navy and air force that can operate from bases far outside Europe and the agreements with several non-European governments (South Africa, Australia, Thailand, Japan and so forth) to be able to operate logistics operations and in many cases combat troops from these nations. This is in addition to training programs that can rapidly replace losses with a high calibre of recruit, China on the other hand cannot replace professional soldiers with a high quality of recruit (and the nepotism/internal politics of the Chinese army will come back to bite it in this scenario).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Thank you, good points and right on.
Russia's ability to project is pretty much limited to the regions you pointed out, Central Asia, Eastern and Southern Europe with their navy being a shell of what it was.