According to different experts the Russian army was considered as the second or third military power in the world, which allowed Russia to have a very important geopolitical role. Many specialists considered Russia as a major player in international relations, with the USA and China in the lead, and then Russia and India et probably Japon. I am quite sad to see no European countries lol.
But didn't the war in Ukraine change that?
From the beginning of the war Russia has encountered great difficulty, logistics, quality of equipment etc..
It could be explained by the fact that Ukraine has shown a heroic resistance that Putin had certainly not foreseen. Of course we can not ignore the fact that the Russian military difficulties today are due to the fact of economic sanctions, American aid whether it is at the economic level, equipment, intelligence etc..
I do not know if Russia will win this war or not. Besides, to know if Russia will win it would be necessary to know what its main objectives are.
But it seems to me that the Russian military power has been quite overestimated.
Has the Russian military power been overestimated?
Actually no, Russian military power has not been overestimated. Rather, even the best tool, when misused or employed ineptly can be rendered ineffective. This is indeed what has happened in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
To start, just in raw material terms the Russian armed forces employ large numbers and, of course, have an extensive thermonuclear weapons arsenal that could devastate a competing power. Albeit likely at the ultimate cost of the destruction of not only Russia's opponents but of Russia itself.
Leaving that aside, it should be recalled at the outset that the Russian military, historically speaking, has not been known for its strategic acumen and tactical dexterity. Rather, what the Russian military brings to the table is the aforementioned raw numbers and a capacity to inflict - and suffer - enormous casualties to the point where Russia's opponent can no longer sustain a fight.
As a German general - I believe it was Franz Halder - described it during the battle of Stalingrad: The German army attacking the Soviet Union is like an elephant attacking a host of ants. It will kill thousands, perhaps millions, but ultimately the Russian numbers will overwhelm him and he will be eaten to the bone.
This is where Russia - again short of a nuclear exchange - exerts its power. It is not, as noted, a technological edge or strategic or tactical acumen. Rather it is the ability of the Russian military to persist to the exhaustion of its opponents. To that end, the Russian military must also be employed en masse. A piecemeal employment of its assets will tend to drag out its operations and starve it of a final resolution.
This is what is going wrong in Ukraine. Instead of throwing the full weight of the Russian military into Ukraine, President Putin sent in a smaller force and has, in effect, continued to feed it into the meat grinder.
This, by the way, is not an unknown error is Russian history. See also the Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland in late 1939 and early 1940. Stalin sent in a comparatively small force that the Finns drew into their territory and then counterattacked, driving the Soviets out of Finland. The war ended in a Soviet victory only because Stalin then reassembled his force and sent in en masse into Finland. The Finns were defeated, though the country was not fully occupied as the Soviets were then diverted by the German invasion of Denmark and Norway.
In the Ukrainian case, Putin has been unwilling to rely on Russian numbers and - as the war has dragged out - he is now facing popular opposition. That combination of factors - the latter making Russia's reliance on its weight of numbers problematic - has allowed Ukraine to continue the war. The wild card here being Russian domestic opposition. Such opposition may make the mobilization of Russian reserves too dangerous for Mr. Putin to employ - thus resulting in a stalemate that favors Ukraine.
Of course, this analysis discusses the Russian army and air force. The Russian navy has been built up in recent decades and is fairly impressive. That said, Russia's limited access to open seas and lack of experience as a maritime power means that the Russian navy amounts to little more than a second class force.
The bottom line is that Mr. Putin miscalculated and is paying the price. He thought he could win a war against Ukraine on the cheap and therefore failed to bring to bear the full weight and potential of the Russian armed forces. That potential is not to be underestimated, though for the time being it has been negated by Mr. Putin's ineptitude.
I'd have to say given history over the last 55 years or so their military forces and equipment has been vastly over-rated as well as their military power.
Regarding their equipment and military tech in some of the more major conflicts in recent history:
- 1967 - Six day war Israel attacked by forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and supported by Saudi's using mostly Russian equipment while Israel has mostly US and some UK/French equipment. Israel has around 1000 KIA, and lose around 400 tanks and 50 aircraft, however the attacking countries lose around 20,000 KIA, around 350 tanks and almost 500 Russian (and some French made) aircraft.
- 1973 Egypt and Syria largely equipped with Russian made aircraft, tanks and Russian advisors attack Isreal in the Yom Kippur war. Israel, largely equipped with American made equipment decimate them again. Israel loses about 2700 KIA, 400 tanks and 150 aircraft, Arabs 21,000 KIA and 2300 tanks, 500 aircraft and 20 or so naval vessels.
-1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Around 25000 Russians KIA, loss of around 500 aircraft, 150 tanks and 500 artillery pieces. The Muji's lost around 100K KIA. Russians we very reliant on their attack helicopters, and when the Muji's were given US made Stinger AA missiles in 1986 this turned the tide of the war and made their doctrine largely ineffective, which sounds like the same effect the HIMARs are having in Ukraine currently. They pulled out in 1989.
- 1990 First Gulf war - After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US and a coalition of ~35 countries come to free Kuwait. The Iraqi Army at the time was the 4th largest in the world, largely equipped with Russian made tanks, aircraft and other hardware. The end result was one of the most lopsided victories in military history. The US, being the major force (approx 75% of coalition forces were US). Coalition losses were 292KIA, around 50 tanks/APC's and 75 aircraft. Iraqi's forces were decimated, with personnel losses at 150,000KIA (around 180000 surrendered), around 5500 tanks/APC's destroyed, 2200 artillery pieces destroyed, 110 aircraft and 20 ships destroyed. Another 140 or so Iraqi aircraft were flown to Iran to avoid destruction since they knew they couldn't win against the coalition aircraft.
- 2003 U. S. invasion of Iraq (2nd Gulf War) - Rinse and repeat, for the most part a largely US force again of around 500K personnel (~50k UK, and 2k Ozzies). The invasion lasts about a month and costs the attacking forces around 200 KIA, the Iraqi's loose around 40,000 KIA. I can't seem to find information on equipment losses, but it was likely similar ratios to the First Gulf War.
There are numerous other conflicts called proxy wars over the last 70 years between the US and Russia to numerous to list out here.
With regard to Russian military personnel. They have a large percentage of conscripts or draftees, which greatly degrades their military effectiveness as we've seen in Ukraine the past few months. The Russian military is estimated to be around 1million actives personnel currently and around (2 million in reserve), with an estimate of around 250,000 being conscripts. I believe most of their conscripts are in Active duty, but not 100% sure which would mean around 25%. The Russians do have some very effective units however, the Spetsnaz (Special Forces) and a large airborne force that is well trained as well. The main concern with Russian military forces however isn't their conventional forces, but their nuclear forces and stockpile. I think if the US and Russia were ever to get into a conventional war the Russians would get their asses kicked very soundly. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and that is the biggest concern. Let's hope we never have to see how effective/ineffective those are.
I doubt western intelligence services would have overestimated, they keep too much tabs in the Russians for that. But I do think our own governments have been bigging up the Russians threat to their own citizens. I suspect they never had the number of troops we were told they had.
Shut the fuck up you stupid bitch and keep sniffing your russian copium. A 13 year old duginist with revenge fantasies on a people defending their country. Holy shit.
this is an invasion... and invasions of this type are a bit more difficult to carry on with
also, Russia is not using the full extent of their armed forces and capabilities because well, it is not a war, and also because they would not want to show their actual protocols and prove that they are not actually up to their reputation, and on this Russia has been estimated to suck big time and so does China (basically, their armies lack communication and synch with one another)
another big reason why Russia is not going with the full power is because if Putin sends the best of his armed forces away from his side, well then he puts himself at risk, he is a dictator so he needs his best armed forces near him, and not away
last, whenever you hear anybody talking about Russia's military power, they do refer to the thousands of nuclear weapons they might have available, and these are not a part of the equation at the Ukraine situation, not an actually present one, although they're still using it as a threat
but other than that, yes... a lot of the Russian armed forces that are actually active for the Ukraine invasion are just not efficient at all, and I would not call that an actual army, just armed forces
Yes absolutely. Russia should have been in complete military control of all of Ukraine by now.
Where is the Russian airforce? They can't fly in Ukrainian territory without getting shot down by handheld anti-aircraft missiles or anti-aircraft missile batteries. Most of the russian Aircraft designs are non stealth and are from thd cold war.
Why aren't Russian army tanks blitzkrieging through Ukraine? Because the Ukrainians have Western anti-tank missiles like javelins and Russian tanks are from the cold war with outdated armor and low tech detection systems. The Ukrainians are also destroying them using cheap drones.
The spetnaz are or were the largest special forces organisation in the world so where are they now? Have they run out of these elite soldiers through casualties?
The Russian army is very reliant on conscripts and conscripts who don't want to be there are poor soldiers, its why the Red Army lost in Afghanistan in the 80s but why the US army was in control of Afghanistan in a few months and fighting another war in another country.
Yes, Russia is indeed still the 2nd strongest military in the world. USA suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Vietnam so does that mean anything? I don’t think so.
Besides, Russia’s initial plan was to only take the Donbass region. And you know what? Walking into their own turf and seizing control of a whole country the size of Ukraine is not something so easy.
I wouldn’t be surprised if US military performered just as bad on something like this. People like to exaggerate because they are obviously biased against Russia and everyone wants to believe that the evil Russia is weak but the plain truth is that facts don’t change based on your feelings.
Military power is almost always overestimated. Just look at history: Napoleon believed he could conquer Europe; Hitler believed he could take Russia in just 6 weeks; the United States thought it could win in Vietnam against guerillas.
There are other examples as well if you take a deep look at history. What's happening with Russia in Ukraine is nothing new.
took 20 years before succeeding in defeating Napoleon. But the important thing is not here.
Because it is other European nations that declared the war to France financed by England, it is only following its various victories that Napoleon to conquer territories.
It was a bit like a punishment for wanting to make war on us, adding also that the territories that Napoleon took were the territories wanted by the old regime, because these territories represented a kind of protective glacis for France.
If the Russian military sent paratroopers with defect rifles into battle, who then desert and seek refugee in Europe (pavel filatiev), Then Thats telling how their current military powers are. Who sends old or problematic equipment into a war unless it's an intended diversion?
There are many point of failures from Russia's side on why their invasion has failed and why you see men fleeing their homeland in order to not die in the meatgrinder for Putin. Putin is drafting farmers and prisoners now.
Not necessarily. It depends on Putin's end goal. He could be playing a long game that'll let him annex or nuke all former Soviet countries and take on the US indirectly by getting them to drain resources supporting Westernised countries not in NATO
Of course it's also possible he's batshit crazy so who knows
The Russian army was successful in the Syrian war. Because the mandate was clear and limited, to provide air support to the Assad forces. Iran was also an ally in this war. However, in the Ukraine war, a very comprehensive and ambiguous operation was carried out in a large country. This led to a dead end.
It is evident now that the Russian army hasn't changed much compared to its soviet predecessor. Russia sent troops to Syria and reshuffled the frontline units multiple times to train them for combined operations, then expected them to perform just as good in Ukraine. They started a full scale, three front war totally unprepared with overconfidence, while underestimating their enemy. Get fucked Russia!
Clearly, but no surprise. The power structure in the USA intentionally overestimates the capabilities of potential enemies in order to secure more funding. They have tactical and strategic nukes, but in conventional warfare you need good tacticians and a good overall strategy or even with superior weapons and numbers you can get your butt handed to you. The Russian generals proved to be borderline imbeciles in many cases
Many of the trained soldiers have been killed and all the conscription soldiers had very little or if any training.
the Ukrainians have something to fight for where the Russians have no morale. After seeing the Russians on the battlefield, it’s shows the lack of training. Plus the Russians are actually giving aid to Ukraine by leaving their tanks ammo behind. Ukraine will come on top but Putin may use nuclear weapons and that will open up a new can of worms.
You are listening to the West media. They are using inexperienced soldiers and this is their first war , however , Ukraine would have been beaten if 20 countries had not sent them arms and weapons. It took US two years to take Iraq , a country 1/3 rd the size of Ukraine , was US forces power over estimated.
Also US lost in Vietnam because Russia supplied them weapons. US forces suck?
also China with sticks and stones stopped US forces from winning in Korea.
It's not always the "military power." Quite often it's the leadership. Iraq had what was supposed to be the best military in the middle east. They were defeated on the ground in <100 hrs. Old adage - it's not the size of the dog in the fight; rather, the fight in the dog.
Russia is a fading power, fading in terms of no longer being one of the global Super Powers, they will remain a substantial Country, but significantly behind the US, China, EU and India both economically and militarily.
Oh Russia has absolutely been overestimated. The dead bodies and wreckage of Russian equipment in Ukraine right now puts the lie to their status is a first world military if they’re being curb stomped by militia.
They ain't got shit because their markets aren't nearly as free as ours are. I think, the freer the market, the bester the living standard, the more powerful the military.
Probably no ukraine get helped, So I think that is because people's reason. like did not define which way foreign country get involved especially Musk help them and war level... etc.
From the way the map looks I’d say Russia accomplished its goals of creating a buffer zone between Ukraine & itself. Its forces are falling back to consolidate those gains.
The annexed areas will be a no mans land for years to come
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
