Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[Markle]

Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?​

In regards to factual and sustainable military losses - undoubtedly the World # 1, military power

Russia?

 

[Markle]

Yes seriously, what evidence do you have that any of those people in that image were killed by Putin ? you don't have any, also i can see one or two of them who were probably killed by Western intelligence as false flags, one Berezovsky was a jewish Oligarch living in London and a anti Putin big mouth he was never off the TV here, however he lost a legal battle with Abramovich another Russian Oligarch living in London it cost Berezovsky a lot of his money, it's reported he had made contact with the Russian authorities to return home to Russia, not long after he was found dead in his home, the point is if he had returned to Russia he knew where the bodies were, it would have been very embarrassing for the British as he could have given the Russians a lot of information about his links with MI6, he also had a close and murky relationship with Litvenenko another Russian MI6 asset, i believe he was taken out by British intelligence, and he was not the only one, some of these people are worth more dead than alive once they have served their purpose, you need to start looking more into events instead of just following the official narrative and accepting it as a given.

Russia?

WOW! Russia isn't even second.

 

[Mushroom]

Germany gave them NO aid in the Winter War.

Not officially, as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty prevented that. But tens of thousands of "volunteers" from Germany did serve in Finland during the Winter War, just as the "Volunteer Army" from China participated in the Korean War. Like a hell of a lot of the aid that they got from Sweden was actually from Germany. Germany sent equipment to Sweden to replace what they gave to Finland. Like the Junkers bombers and other sorts of equipment. Sweden sends their older equipment to Finland, and Germany then sent them newer equipment to replace it (or assisted them in making their own replacements). And Sweden was more than happy with that deal, as it let them replace their older WWI stockpiles of equipment from rifles and ammunition to machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, artillery, and everything else with either newer stuff from Germany, or get a lot of German aid and "technical advice" in updating their own equipment. Almost all of the Finish military equipment from before the war went to Finland, and a lot of that was developed in the inter-war years with German assistance.

One thing it surprises me that many do not know is that in order to get around treaty restrictions during that time, Germany worked with several nations in secret arms development programs. Among those nations was Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and of all nations the Soviet Union. Most of the major advances in German tank and aircraft design and tactics into the 1930s came from joint German-USSR programs. Like the Lipetsk Fighter School and the Kama Tank School. With Sweden it was similar, as German "technicians" were working with Sweden to create new generations of artillery and anti-aircraft guns.

Germany was trying very hard to comply with the M-R Treaty, and wanted no outward sign that they intended to violate it in the future. They did not even interfere with the transports bringing aid to Finland from the Western Powers, as they knew ultimately those would be used against the Soviets so was a good thing for them. But they were trying very hard to give absolutely no sign that they were not being neutral in the conflict.

Hitler was generally a thug and a moron, not much better than Stalin. But he could also be cunning as a fox when he thought he could take advantage of something in the end.

 

[Deadstick]

Russia?

WOW! Russia isn't even second.

Who cares about some juvenile my Dad is bigger than your Dad argument ? what i would say is Russia is in the process of teaching Nato a lesson in Ukraine.

 

[Mushroom]

what i would say is Russia is in the process of teaching Nato a lesson in Ukraine.

And where exactly is Russia fighting NATO?

In fact, where is Russia today compared to where they were a year and a half ago?

Russia advance in Ukraine, March 2022:

Russian holdings July 2023:

Yes, I guess they are giving NATO a lesson. In how to completely futtbuck a war.

 

[Deadstick]

And where exactly is Russia fighting NATO?

In fact, where is Russia today compared to where they were a year and a half ago?

Russia advance in Ukraine, March 2022:

Russian holdings July 2023:

Yes, I guess they are giving NATO a lesson. In how to completely futtbuck a war.

In Ukraine where do you think? the only thing that isn't Nato are the cannon fodder, evertyhing else is.

 

[Mushroom]

In Ukraine where do you think?

NATO is fighting in Ukraine? Really? Once again you completely ignore any actual facts you do not like, and simply repeat stupid propaganda.

Care to actually discuss the "success" of Russia in Ukraine, and not see it is completely FUBAR?

 

[Deadstick]

NATO is fighting in Ukraine? Really? Once again you completely ignore any actual facts you do not like, and simply repeat stupid propaganda.

Care to actually discuss the "success" of Russia in Ukraine, and not see it is completely FUBAR?

You are in total denial mode, Nato provide the weapons the intelligence they have their people embedded with the Ukrainians directing the war in all aspects, i can't wait for those war criminals to be totally buried in Ukraine.

 

[Mushroom]

You are in total denial mode, Nato provide the weapons the intelligence they have their people embedded with the Ukrainians directing the war in all aspects, i can't wait for those war criminals to be totally buried in Ukraine.

Right. In the mighty Russian offensive that has actually lost more ground than they have gained.

And you claim I am in denial.

 

[Deadstick]

Right. In the mighty Russian offensive that has actually lost more ground than they have gained.

And you claim I am in denial.

Not only in denial but deluded, it will be one hell of a shock when reality hits.

 

[Deadstick]

NATO is fighting in Ukraine? Really? Once again you completely ignore any actual facts you do not like, and simply repeat stupid propaganda.

Care to actually discuss the "success" of Russia in Ukraine, and not see it is completely FUBAR?

Can you discuss the success of the Ukrainian offensive? it's a nightmare, so far in this war they have had four hundred thousand casualties the battlefield is littered with Nato wreckage, there are three lines of Russian defences the Ukrainians have not broken through the first, i think it will end up like the battles of Kursk which was many times bigger, at some stage there will be a massive counter offensive by the Russians.

 

[DGS49]

The Russians have an endemic problem when it comes to making war. They produce garbage. No matter what comes out of Russia's factories it is junk. Tanks, jeeps, planes, whatever. It is all maintenance-intensive and inclined to fail often. This is why Putin dares not launch a nuclear weapon; it is likely that it would explode on the launchpad, miss its target, or prove to be a dud, making Putin a global laughingstock.

 

[José]

No matter what comes out of Russia's factories it is junk. Tanks, jeeps,
planes, whatever. It is all maintenance-intensive and inclined to fail often.

As Deadstick said in another thread:

"They are working just fine in Ukraine."

 

[Dayton3]

The Russians have an endemic problem when it comes to making war. They produce garbage. No matter what comes out of Russia's factories it is junk. Tanks, jeeps, planes, whatever. It is all maintenance-intensive and inclined to fail often. This is why Putin dares not launch a nuclear weapon; it is likely that it would explode on the launchpad, miss its target, or prove to be a dud, making Putin a global laughingstock.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[Kruska]

Russia?

Even though meant in a sarcastic way - YES

Which other country e.g. the USA could conduct and continue a war were it had lost around 200,000 men and thousands of heavy military equipment and weaponry, fighting a single country? After having lost around 60,000 men in 10 years in Vietnam they decided (correctly) to make a run for it.

A military superpower isn't simply defined by e.g. our F-15 is better then your SU-30 - but in regards to it's sustainability to conduct a war.

Therefore IMO - though still being in parts technologically superior to China, the USA could never sustain - aka win, a war against China.
The USA is simply an undoubtedly proven military superpower in regard to trashing and ******* up military underdogs since 1945. And the first time the USA couldn't sustain a major war was during the Korean war.

 

[Kruska]

..... But tens of thousands of "volunteers" from Germany did serve in Finland during the Winter War,

Total nonsense and a blatantly false statement by you.

Having approached Germany without reaching a formal alliance, Finland allowed German troops transit through the country after the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union in June 1941.

In December 1939 the Finnish government decided that volunteers would be accepted only from countries definitely friendly to the Finnish cause. This included e.g. Scandinavians, Hungarians, British and French volunteers. German and Russian volunteers were not permitted.

Since Germany was allied with the Soviet Union at the time, the official German line forbade enlistment of German volunteers. Italy, another dictatorship, felt it had to toe a cautious line and forbade enlistment although Mussolini felt great sympathy for Finland. There were about 5000 Italian volunteers willing to come to Finland but the government denied them passports for leaving the country.

Foreign volunteers in the Winter War

www.axishistory.com

Official Finnish records account for 2 volunteers from Austria and 18 from Germany.

 

[Kruska]

Yes, I guess they are giving NATO a lesson. In how to completely futtbuck a war.

A typical Mushroom post - full of false statements inspired by the MSM

The yellow designated areas aside those around Kherson and East of Kharkiv, were never controlled by Russia - but naturally established during the initial Russian attack - and abandoned from week 3 onward - due to Russia having ordered it's troops to pull back towards Kharkiv and into Donbas/Luhansk.

The factually by Russia conquered aka occupied and controlled areas from Feb. 2022, are those marked in red - over which till today the UAF has not been able to regain control. Therefore in regards to factually occupied territory - Russia is still the one winning.

 

[Kruska]

The Russians have an endemic problem when it comes to making war. They produce garbage. No matter what comes out of Russia's factories it is junk. Tanks, jeeps, planes, whatever. It is all maintenance-intensive and inclined to fail often.

Correct

This is why Putin dares not launch a nuclear weapon; it is likely that it would explode on the launchpad, miss its target, or prove to be a dud, making Putin a global laughingstock.

A nuclear warhead doesn't go off - due to a missile failing, or even exploding in a silo. Therefore that statement of yours is irrelevant.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Even though meant in a sarcastic way - YES

Which other country e.g. the USA could conduct and continue a war were it had lost around 200,000 men and thousands of heavy military equipment and weaponry, fighting a single country? After having lost around 60,000 men in 10 years in Vietnam they decided (correctly) to make a run for it.

A military superpower isn't simply defined by e.g. our F-15 is better then your SU-30 - but in regards to it's sustainability to conduct a war.

Therefore IMO - though still being in parts technologically superior to China, the USA could never sustain - aka win, a war against China.
The USA is simply an undoubtedly proven military superpower in regard to trashing and ******* up military underdogs since 1945. And the first time the USA couldn't sustain a major war was during the Korean war.

The USA can and has sustained years long wars taking very heavy casualties. But American war fighting is very different from Russian war fighting. Russians send bodies instead of bullets. Americans send bullets instead of bodies. Ever since the ACW, we have fought technological wars where other countries wasted their manpower, we have conserved ours. That’s why we can afford the well trained, professional army that we have while Russia sends cannon fodder out to be slaughtered. The Ukrainians have adopted the same idea, but ran out of time to implement it completely. If Putin had waited just two or three years, his initial invasion would have completely failed instead of mostly failing.

 

[Kruska]

The USA can and has sustained years long wars taking very heavy casualties. But American war fighting is very different from Russian war fighting. Russians send bodies instead of bullets. Americans send bullets instead of bodies. Ever since the ACW, we have fought technological wars where other countries wasted their manpower, we have conserved ours. That’s why we can afford the well trained, professional army that we have while Russia sends cannon fodder out to be slaughtered. The Ukrainians have adopted the same idea, but ran out of time to implement it completely. If Putin had waited just two or three years, his initial invasion would have completely failed instead of mostly failing.

Maybe you or we need to define as to what is a Superpower.

The USA hasn't sustained a single war since 1945 - once human casualties got involved - starting off with Korea and ending with Vietnam.
Human military losses encountered by the USA since then numbered in a couple of thousand. see Iraq or Afghanistan.

And yes as I had already pointed out - fighting short term wars with technological overwhelming superiority against nobody's isn't any prove towards being a military superpower. Neither can e.g. Afghanistan be termed as a war and neither as a war between equal opponents - but simply the technological vastly superior USA and NATO bombing and killing off sandal wearing insurgents for 20 years - couldn't even win that kind of military engagement - and then running home due to having lost a couple of thousand soldiers.

France and Belgium have been kicking African butts around successfully for the past 60 years - does that make them a Superpower?

Ukraine and Russia are equally matched (only due to NATO stuffing the UAF with weaponry and technological&intel support). Since NATO and Ukraine had planed to kick off a war (around 2024/25) in order to reoccupy Donbas/Luhansk and Crimea - Putin decided to attack first.

Russia is obviously able to sustain an all out war till now, despite horrific losses in manpower and equipment, which proves that they are indeed a Superpower. Furthermore Russia is factually fighting a war against Ukraine and NATO.

And Russia hasn't just send soldiers (or body's as you state) but as losses proof - thousands of vehicles and tanks. That Russia is technologically inferior to the US and NATO military equipment is obvious, as such technological superiority towards equipment is not a prove towards being a Superpower - it only proves that e.g. the USA can wack around nobodies, whilst suffering themselves very low casualties. Neither are the amount of nukes one has, a proof - since they obviously won't/can't be used.

And if one can't win wars due to not being able to sustain human casualties - then that party might be vastly technologically superior - but it ain't a superpower - especially not, if faced with a far more equally matched technological opponent like China.

Therefore you might rightfully consider the USA to be a military superpower on paper and in regards to numbers of military equipment they posses - but are they able to actually win a war against a technologically matched opponent, or one that is willing and capable to sacrifice lives? certainly not since 1945.

In conclusion, the USA possesses a technologically sophisticated military - which makes them a fearsome opponent that wacks around nobodies. They haven't been able to win any war since 1945, were higher human casualties started to come in - which therefore excludes them from being a superpower.