The "Russian threat" isn't backed by the size of their military. It's backed 1) by nuclear deterrence and 2) their large and deep network of diplomatic and political relations.<p>Russia could have taken over Crimea with a couple of tanks, and some minimal army they could at least theoretically assemble were Ukraine to, alone, respond. They basically did take Crimea with just a couple of tanks.<p>Within Russia's traditional sphere of influence, it's understood by everybody that no Western power would ever directly challenge them. That understanding largely rests on the nuclear deterrence and the desire to avoid direct military conflict between nuclear powers.<p>Russia's flex in the Middle East is largely made possible by their political relationships, kept intact by the fact that China has focused on Africa, rather than the Middle East, when filling the power vacuum left by the dissolution of the USSR.<p>Russian military spending was always principally intended to solve domestic political problems. Much more so than in the U.S. The reduction is good for the Russian citizenry. It's largely irrelevant in terms of their international strategic posture.
So Russia is slashing its military budget. But no reason to despair. Putin's good buddy Trump is planning on getting rid of the economic sanctions, and doing everything possible to help get Russia's economy growing. So soon Russia will be able to get back to its modernization program.<p>And Trump's stated reason for all this? It's so that Russia can use new nuclear sub's and other weapons to help us fight Isis.