Why do you think Russia was able to win so many wars in the past?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The last one would explain what's going on now.

Dedication to the motherland

Fighting and survival prowess of the Russian people

Rugged but easy to produce equipment

General winter

Strategic depth

Piss poor preparation by their adversaries

They had Ukraine on their side

[NaultD]

Russia was always recognized as a sleeping giant for 1700 Europeas. Getting large in power insde territory that no one else wants. Sub tundra that's land lock dosen't make money.

Communication kick the giants nuts awake. That ultimately rolled over Berlin and got into space travel. The problem was how unethical the ussr was. that ultimately rotted the government inside then out

The current Russia is little different then in the past USSR. It's eating away from the inside out. Same can be said with china currently.

USA is far from perfect but the core of democracy is holding strong against authoritarianism better than any other country in history. I'm hopeful but ever vigilant.

[CALIGVLA]

"USA is far from perfect but the core of democracy is holding strong against authoritarianism better than any other country in history. I'm hopeful but ever vigilant."

LOL!!!

This is a declaration of faith, not a rational analysis. You need to leave your secular cult, kiddo.

[monorprise]

Russia relative to Europe is just much larger, but Russia is also as a result of that size much more diverse. This makes maintaining "democracy" rather difficult with soo many different competing interest.
Invariably the most powerful faction takes over and creates an empire subjugating the otherwise disagreeable minorities with force. Such as been the norm in most lands thou out history as no matter where you start, you go thou enough cycles with said issues eventually 1 faction or leaders is going to successfully secure their hold on power ending democracy and creating an empire.

What makes the U. S. A. outside of only being 200 years old with no history of authoritative to build on is our constitutional system is resistant to centralizing the power necessary for any 1 faction to take over everything.
The U. S. A. like every country will become an empire eventually as generations of leaders eventually figure out how to centralize enough power for one of them to successfully avoid ever giving it up.

However so long as that remains practically impossible we will be inclined towards democracy. Hopefully we will fragment and break apart as designed before that happens thou. The 50 States would then be able to reform later restarting the cycle.

[CALIGVLA]

I think it has something to do with its soldiers' motivation.

Modern Russia has always had some of the best generals in the world, good equipment and it's been a relatively rich country. This surely helps, but at the end of the day the soldier's motivation is a determining factor as to whether the army will win or lose a war.

They fought like true warriors against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Napoleon's France, Nazi Germany, but they didn't perform well in Finland, Afghanistan and against Chechen separatists in the very Russia's territory. Motivation can explain it because aggressiveness is a fundamental factor for success in battle.

[FreyaRed]

"So many?"
I count two wins and three loses after Soviet revolution.
They won WW2 because of US lend-lease program that supported them with billions in weapons, steel and vehicles. They won second Chechen war. This was practically a war against a micro state without allies and even there Russians failed in first Chechen war because they sent untrained conscripts which were slaughtered like sheep.

[CALIGVLA]

"They won WW2 because of US lend-lease program that supported them with billions in weapons, steel and vehicles."

What had you been doing while you were skipping the history class?

[FreyaRed]

read that before you start to talk BS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[CALIGVLA]

If you spent less time on watching anime and more on studying and reading books, you wouldn't be this ignorant little 💩 you are.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that the US Lend-Lease program helped the Soviet Union take Berlin and end World War II with German defeat. However, if one looks at the data, it becomes apparent that it was not the deciding factor for saving the Soviet Union from the German invasion. ***There is much academic support for the fact that the Soviets would have defeated Germany even without Lend-Lease."***

www.thecollector.com/.../

[FreyaRed]

@CALIGVLA Rude, inelegant and ignorant, typical combo of a fool.

[CALIGVLA]

Sorry not sorry for being rude to you. It wouldn't happen if you had already learned to do what every ignorant person should do, which is STFU.

When we give stupid people the right to talk, you'll only lower every standard of the debate. Now it's your claim that the USSR only won the war because of the West, later you might claim that the Holocaust didn't happen or that the earth is flat. You should know that your views are not acceptable.

It can't be possible that the academic consensus is wrong about the subject here and an ignorant person like you is right. Sorry.

[Kelly6]

Because back then their enemies were no getting back support from USA or other countries.

example

how you think Afghanistan beat Russian?

usa supplies arms, and Pakistan smuggled it in Afghanistan and with intelligence services pakistan told them where to attack.

[Kelly6]

Thanks for Mho

[lightbulb27]

I'll guess since I really don't know this history well.

they are willing to throw volumes of people at a problem without care, and eventually overwhelm the other side.

I'd want to see the casualty rates in their engagements compared to others. One wonders if war for them is a form of internal "cleansing"... a way to eliminate unwanteds and clear prison camps. No-one complains too much when people die in war, but if they execute them by firing squad or in camps, that's illegal.

[jshm2]

It is unique in the world in that it is a complete economy.

Western countries have always relied on slaves, pillage and resource robbing of foreign states. Even today this holds true, as everything from outsourced labour to cheap oil and mining in feeder states is what drives Western economies.

Russia has everything it needs within it's own borders. It's why it is among the worlds oldest states.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Russia had an empire and while it doesn't export capital to the global south, it sure as hell does that to the confines of the former Russian empire.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

And what should be obvious now is that even if Russia sanctioned proof it's economy, now they can't get enough parts to make high tech weapons due to western sanctions.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

www.aljazeera.com/.../russian-weapons-in-ukraine-powered-by-western-parts-rusi

[jshm2]

Russia is playing both sides of the game with Ukraine. It doesn't want to give away any of it's newer technology so has left Ukraine with it's older kit to upgrade. The West too cannot get enough parts to make it's high tech weapons - as China produces most of them.

Russia is in a far better position with China than the West is though.

So it could be Ukraine is just a ploy by both to see who China really backs. As the other side will be fucked without China backing them.

Don't forget this is a financial war more than anything. The West needs to keep it's inflation down while supplying and repairing Ukraine. Russia needs to do neither.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Yeah, Russia has shown ineptitude when using it's tech from the 90s so yeah, if they throw anything new in the fight it's going to get captured because they lack the logistics and organization to use it effectively. Oh, because an alloy used in the F35 engines means that the US military depends on China; LOL are you serious? If Chinese tech was that big of a game changer, Russia would have been using it by now and would be engaging Ukraine with mechanized warfare instead of shelling Ukraine from trenches like it's WW1.

And no this is not a "financial war" (someone's bought into the "proxy war" BS) or an attritional insurgency, it's a conventional war where capacity to fight determines the outcome.

[genericname85]

because for one they are in the top 10 most populated countries in the world and then also i think what plays a major role is that the people from there are hardened by the life they lead as opposed to people in the west, who are mostly helpless pussies if we're honest with ourselfes. like the hardest battle we fight in day to day life is trying to figure out how to order a 10 bucks overpriced coffe in a starbucks.

[purplepoppy]

Historically they've always won at a huge cost. The leaders don't mind sending men to their deaths because they have plenty of spares. They know if you give the enemy enough targets you'll exhaust their ammo supply

[MrHopper]

"If you throw enough people at something eventually you will take it" was a popular strategy in WW1 and previous wars, unfortunately as technology has progressed that multiple of people has increased to the point now it won't work

[Tyrael]

A combination of things but I think a major part of it was there dedication to the cause. Their discipline and willingness to fight would go a long way to explaining it.

[xJeremyx]

To quote a youtube channel (Oversimplified), "It got cold. STUPID cold."

Thats how the Russians survived against Napoleon and Nazi Germany, in the first place.

[AviatorTom]

Russia almost always had help. If the Allies didn't have D-day in WWII, do you really think Soviet Russian troops would have been able to take Berlin?

[goaded]

They were defending themselves from invaders, not invading. Of course, when they fought back, they found themselves with more territory than before...

[CateM]

They know their terrain well and have a strong military

[HighValue]

They didn't have multiple wealthy countries teaming up against them like they do now.

[SlothySlob]

From what I've seen, it was always larger number and fear of the people in charge.

[inhua]

they were mentally tougher than their opponents.

[Agape93]

Winter, floods of men and cheap but effective equipment

[00100100100]

Brutal winters and adversary blunders. Certainly not because of their military prowess. Even Finland kicked their ass in the winter war.

[User3191989]

Germany made the mistake of opening a front of both sides. Hitler, as usual, was a fucking dumbass

[LiamJHayden]

Citizens are much more likely to fully support a war of defense. An offensive war of choice, not so much.

[LiamJHayden]

Also the cost can be huge. The USSR lost about 24,000,000 people in WWII

[Fuentes]

Winter but Russia didn't win anything past Afghanistan.

[DaisyM23]

manpower, resources and their environment

[NathanDavis]

because they were easier

[KostasKouvalis]

they play dirty

[Bel2718]

Reasons A, C and E.