Probably movies and propoganda, but Russia does supply a lot of energy to Europe and they have some powerful allies. And Putin basically does whatever he wants without consequences. Mongolia is part of that War Crimes Treaty, so technically, they had legal obligations to arrest Putin if he ever set foot in the country, but the President of Mongolia invited him as a guest.
Putin is allied with all of America's enemies, and whenever he provides military intervention, his team always comes out victorious. Putin does what Putin wants, because he knows no one will do anything about it. Those sanctions had no effect on him. And he also gave FIFA bribes, but didn't face the kind of backlash that Qatar did. Not to mention how Biden traded him a trained assassin for a junkie basketball player😂He's basically trolling his haters and enemies at every turn. No one had the balls to punish Putin so they punished Russian athletes and millionaires. It seems to really boil down to fear. People are scared to touch Russia, just like they're scared to touch China. Maybe Russia is more talk, but they clearly know how to intimidate their enemies. Everyone is scared to use violence against Russia. If Ukraine's allies actually cared about Ukraine, they would invade a portion of Russia, just to troll Putin.
😂😂😂😂 they must not have watched Rambo III
But they won in Syria. They won in Georgia. They won in Chechnya. They won in Crimea. That's sort of what I was talking about.
Do it!
I never claimed they did. I'm talking about recent history.
Also, it sounds like we're including the Soviet Union. How far back do you want to go.
That's the Rambo III reference I was referring to. But almost no one has been able to conquer Afghanistan. I think only like one or two people in history were able to do it
Brittany Griner is NOT a junkie; she had some marijuana paraphenalia on her. If she were a cisgender straight WHITE woman, would you be saying that about her? You know the answer as well as I.
Bitter French & German experience I'd say. It is not of course but there are few defensible natural borders and Catherine the Great made the point she had to keep on increasing her borders.
And of course there is the famous winter cold and the mud either side. Russia's own expansion was relatively slow and there wasn't that much native opposition.
To conquer all of Russia is a big task and would require a lot of troops. Approx 100M by X where X is the ratio of troops to population. Anything without a few zeros after the decimal point seems impossible
With a lack of natural borders, bite and holding smaller worthwhile chunks is problematical if there is more steppe surrounding it.
Mostly I'd suggest Russia is uneconomic to conquer. Napoleon didn't seek to conquer Russia, he just wanted buy in for his geopol.
First of all, as far as Nazi Germany and Napoleon are concerned, Russia was part of a broad coalition. It's a myth that Russia defeated Hitler or Napoleon on its own. There's no way that Russia alone could have challenged France's military might in Europe for exemple. And during the Second World War, American aid to the Russian war effort is often forgotten.
The Russian army has been very effective throughout its history, and they deserve our respect. But there's no way I'm going to buy into the myth that Russia lost virtually no wars, because it's not even close to reality.
I'd agree it was no more than campaign in terms of Napoleon and Hitler and the associated wars were much broader.
Russia lost the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War and WWI since the industrialization of war which I think is mostly after Napoleon.
Any invincibility reputation stems from Russia's defensive capacity and it does not follow their offensive capacity is high - fortunately. Ukraine has put paid to that and shattered invincible in offensive.
So completely agree.
Russia may be huge and well armed but you only need to take countries economic centers for it to fall. Ukraine hasn't fallen because Russia has only taken fields and a few insignificant small towns.
It's certainly not militarily invincible but the cost of doing so in terms of life would be higher than the west would be willing to pay.
My tactic would be to first break loyalty to their leaders. A promise to open up access to western markets, bring in modern western technology and a huge investment in improving their lives. I'd promise to let them keep their identity and largely self rule but they follow me not Putin. People don't care who's in charge as long as they can do what they want and the replacement is better than the last ruler.
Western weapon merchants. Crazy, evil bear generates profits.
Opinion
22Opinion
m A lot of it is purely propaganda and uneducated people looking at 2 events and saying they are powerful, Napoleon and WW2, the thing is they did not do well in a number of wars. Historically they have used the sheer size of their country and the massive size of their army, people seem to shy away from the Crimean War, the Russia-Japanese war and complete defeat against Japanese navy, then WW1 and well beaten by Germany, then 1920 they attacked Poland and got beaten e. g Miracle on the Vistula. Much like Ukraine Russia was given a fighting chance against Hitlers invasion due to massive aid from the allies. Then they had their own problems in Afghanistan.
Well, historically, some big players had their arses kicked, Adolf, Napoleon...
This is enough to establish a reputation here. There's also the wide Putin spreading the super machoman phallus everywhere on internet, with bears, horses, topless and stuff.
So, yes, history + propaganda power, I think?
I even need the Bee Gees now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zJc9GcSJio
You are mocking me by comparing Napoleon to Hitler. In both cases, Russia was part of a vast European coalition, and in the first case, it received financial aid from the British in addition to being part of a coalition. You might mention Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, but first, if we want to be precise, Napoleon didn’t lose any battles on Russian soil. It was the winter and the scorched-earth strategy that eventually wore down Napoleon’s army.
Even if Napoleon was 'defeated' in Russia, the Russians still wouldn’t have been able to challenge Napoleon in Europe, so their success in repelling the Napoleonic invasion would have had little impact if Russia had been alone.
Moreover, during World War II, they received economic aid from the United States as part of a coalition.
This puts into perspective the idea that the Russians are militarily 'invincible.' In fact, the Russians haven’t won the greatest number of military victories, far from it. I can cite many Russian defeats.
The Russian army is a great army when you look at its history, but to say that Russia hasn’t suffered many defeats is nonsense.
Relax Marianne, I'm french 🤣
You asked, precisely, about the origins of a reputation, reputation, not historical validity.
Just reputation. This is your terms, for this question, okay?
Bisous, it's all right lol
Because they love Putin and want Putin to continue his reign of terror. They fought Ukraine since that land position allowed multiple attacks against them (Napoleonic Forces & Nazi Soldiers), Russia isn’t invincible because the Buffer Zone on Russian territory would have fallen. They will fall when the world unites as one for this cause.
I understand they were defeated in WWI.
But they changed government and have nuclear weapons, a large military. difficult to defeat when have nuclear weapons due to threat. have to take out their nuclear ability fast and then take over country. That is the problem and risk and threat to security.
So we are now a hair trigger away from nuclear war risk. Add long range missiles into ukraine, its as bad as it gets.
You spent too much time studying communism... It's made you stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fXW02XmBGQwTheir production capacity and general land mass. They can out produce the west, so they from our perspective have infinite regular supplies.
Even with the US having drastically reduced its manufacturing capacity, if you think Russia can Out-produce the USA alone, you are delusional.
Russia is not the Soviet Union - a large percentage of the USSRs manufacturering capacity came from satellite countries, which Russia no longer controls.
Nukes are the only reason Russia is feared - but there is every reason to believe that those haven't been maintained either. Nukes must be expensively maintained in order to work, but Russian generals all figured out that since they are never used, why not just SAY you maintained them and buy yourself a yacht and a luxury apartment in London instead? And I'm not exaggerating.
US, UK, China, France, Russia and secretly Israel, are all invincible. We'll all only be fighting proxy wars and dealing with terrorism.
It would be extremely difficult to conquer and control Russia because of it's size. Heck, even Russia hasn't conquered Russia yet.
If you mean invading russia? well the terrain is usually why. just look what happened to napoleon when he tried... and although they killed a lot of russians Hitler also failed badly there.
i think i also agree the Russian propaganda probably pushes that narrative outward too. they project it even though its clearly not true at all with how poorly they are doing with Ukraine right now.
as can i but the russian propaganda machine is a very powerful force. i know they pour lots of money into it.
Russia has enough nukes to annihilate the West. That means they can be pushed too far. We may be doing that in Ukraine.
1. They are the largest country on Earth. About twice the size the US.
2. They have a lot - and I mean a lot- of nuclear weapons.
3. They are batshit crazy.
russia isn't invincible. that's bullshit. but it's so strong that it can't be easily messed with. if that was the case, either the chinese or the americans would already have fucked them up.
No country is invincible but some- those with access to nuclear or biological weapons can seem that way since the cost of antagonizing them is so high
u certainly not from Afghanistan... lol
"deterrence" might be part of it
that's still a factor for which, not many or perhaps nobody would dare to invade and take out a dictator/oligarch system in place, with that many access to nuclear warheads
that's just propaganda... which is know, what America is about
propaganda
Russia has a terrain and weather which makes it almost impossible to invade. This gives them a lot of advantages, to pursue their strategic goals. They have lost to Japan though.
All the Cold War nukes they had, which are all pretty old now
We're about to give Ukraine permission to take the fight to them.
Russia is truly invincible. Throughout the history of states, there has always been a Russian state.
its different in terms of history
Subutai crushed Russia
Uh - the nuclear weapons they clearly have.
Their history and cold war propaganda
Maybe because it’s full of snow
Putin lovers and their ilk.
ussr era
i agree with you
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 
