Do you think Russian military power has been overestimated for decades?

[MaxUsefull]

[Drewtate]

Absolutely. Russia has never been so weak and corruption has eroded their military. When they went into Ukraine the generals and everyone else had sold a lot of their fuel supplies, ammunition and other vital equipment off. Tyres on Russian vehicles were wearing out within a week of the invasion because they'd sold them off and replaced them with cheap Chinese tyres. There wasn't enough AKs or Ak rounds probably because the US had bought them all up to arm the Afgan national army and iraqi army. Add all that to the fact that they are fighting using 1970s Russian equipment and tactics yeah they are definitely overrated. Russia in Ukraine have lost most of their best people that conscripts are not going to be able to replace. They are unable to operate aircraft over Ukraine and are forced to rely on inaccurate ww2 style bombardments while the Ukrainians can do with 1 what it takes Russia to do with 100.

Russia has been overestimated for years but the us military has known exactly how weak Russia was.

[DryGermanGuy]

Not necessarily, only for specific scenarios. The USSR always had millions of at least basic trained soldiers/reserves, ten-thousands of units of dumb iron and atomic weapons. But they lack in modern technology (rushed copies of Western ideas), they lack in modern methods (combined arms warfare) and they lack in HR/material maintenance (planes falling from the sky).

That's why they won in World War II with an uncompromising all-out warfare and the clear motivation of defending their home country. And that's why they are failing miserably in Ukraine, because they put that country in the exact same spot they had been from 1941-1945.

[Drewtate]

The USSR won in WW2 because the US and Britain supplied them with whatever they needed. If the us had been supplying the Germans in WW2 they would have won.

[chrissykerdock]

unless you think they're not doing too good... america gives ukraine billions every 2 weeks god know what kind of weapons they get.

[ManOnFire]

I think maybe the Russian gov itself has overestimated this. And seems to be that they only want to tout nuclear weapons as their major threat that the world should fear, maybe to make up for the fact that they know they aren't really a great military. They tried controlling Afghanistan in the 80s and that didn't work - but didn't work for the U. S. either, Afghanistan is a country few invaders have ever triumphed over. And they barely beat off the Chechens in the 90s.

I think Russia has an easier time bullying neighbors they know aren't really going to stand a chance. Also using war of attrition shows that they obviously aren't that brilliant with combat. If you have to resort to tactics like that then you aren't very strategically intelligent on the battlefield.

[Drewtate]

The US knocked Alqueda and the taliban down in the first few months in the war on terror. When the Russians were there it was an absolute bloodbath. The taliban waited 20 years until the us government left and even then they were likely allowed to take control to stop isis getting in and to keep neighbouring countries in line.

[ManOnFire]

@Drewtate That is probably true.

[Lionman95]

No because in the current conflict Russia is facing the military power of the Ukraine and the NATO. Though isn´t officially involved in the conflict with troops but it´s deeply involved with military machines and enginees. So one could argue Russia is fighting with Ukraine, UK, France, Poland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal (?) and the US miltary at the same time.
If NATO wasn´t supporting the Ukraine the conflict might be already over. The problem for Russia is that that they have only partners to support them financially besides Iran maybe. I haven´t heard anything that they are getting military support by North Korea yet.

[Drewtate]

If Russia was facing the military power of NATO the war would be over and NATO tanks would have destroyed the Russian military in the field. Russia big problem is that they were not prepared to fight this war

[Lionman95]

I agree that Russia wasn't prepared for this war but the NATO isn't that strong either. My point just that the NATO keep Ukraine alive in battle without their help the war would have been over by now. Because what Russia really underestimated was the help that Ukraine got.

[Drewtate]

NATO are keeping Ukraine going with just enough. Using it to test out new weapons and most of what Ukraine are getting is being replaced. There's about 4-5 thousand M4s from the war on terror and maybe 1 million M16s along with the stockpiles of 5.56mm and stagnag magazines that the US is going to be getting rid of. The F16 is slowly being replaced and their are huge stockpiles of them from the 80s all the way up to the present. Everything from the cold war era is going.

[Jersey2]

I think most of their weapons systems are from the Soviet era. The newer designs, like the S-400 are grossly overrated. I think the Ukrainians have proven that lately, even this week. Turkey lost so much credibility by buying the S-400. They shouldn’t be allowed to have the F-16 due to that purchase for obvious reasons to those who have followed it.

[BCA6010]

If I had it my way, Turkey would be ejected from NATO (for different reasons) but that will never happen because they have the second largest military in NATO and third place isn't even close.

[Drewtate]

Wheels within wheels. Turkey buying the S400 allows NATO to get a good look at it much like when Poland and others joined NATO the US got a look at a lot of Russian equipment. Russia should not have doldrums the S400 to Turkey

[Jersey2]

@Drewtate The S400 gathers information and it gets sent to Russia. F-16s flying around provide it with a good look at capabilities and tactics.

Enough has been learned about the S-400 then. It should be scrapped and Patriot systems bought by Turkey.

[Drewtate]

Turkey is probably going to look to build their own. The f16 is 50 years old, everything Russia wants to know about it is already known, hell the Chinese are building f16 copies. What NATO needs is for turkey to buy a few Chinese fighters

[Jersey2]

@Drewtate The F-16 is still wanted by many countries and it always being updated.

Yes, Turkey should buy Chinese fighters. D

[Drewtate]

If you are a country with no domestic aircraft industry the F16 is the way to go. Look at its main rivals. The Swedish Griffin costs more and spare parts will be problematic. The mig29 is cheap and a good dogfighter but not so good in ground attack and is very short range either a light weapons load. The French raffle is good but expensive and performance not much better than the f16. If you don't want the f16 and F18 might be the ticket.

[Jersey2]

@Drewtate good points

[Anonymous]

From a conventional standpoint, yes. Anyone who looks at Russia's military makeup can see it of a defensive nature. It contains mostly armor (tanks and whatnot). Both for defending Russia and extending it's border off Moscows doorstep (I'm not defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine but it does make sense for Russia to control it for thier defense. Russia's weapons are not that technologically advanced either. Russia's view towards military is about the same as it's view towards it's citizens. Throw wave after wave of subpar poorly trained weaponry at the enemy. Russia is OK with losing a million men.

Really the ONLY thing that makes Russia formidable is 1 the vast untapped or underdeveloped resources they possess. And of course the nuclear option.

[WindAtMyBack]

During the Soviet Union days I think they were pretty strong. After the break up I think the military went to hell. Spending so much on the military was a major reason they broke up in the first place. They were trying to have an arms race with the US, but didn't have nearly as strong of an economy as the US, and it was hurting them badly. So they dramatically reduced spending.

[Drewtate]

Another factor was that they were trying to build ever more technologically advanced weapons and equipment out of 1930s factories which meant the designs cost more and were more labor intensive.

[abc3643]

It's hard to underestimate nuclear weapons.

There's a difference between the weapons you have the willingness to use them.
If you really want to win a war and don't care about the costs, you whip the nukes and end it that day.

[OddBeMe]

Don’t really know. But having powerful friends with good funding and military resources isn’t a match for invading forces. Says Israel in 48 and 67. Vietnam. Afghanistan. And now Ukraine.

[exitseven]

No, I never really thought it was that great to begin with.

[jshm2]

No. The opposite.

[JackCarter]

Overestimated? I don't think so frankly