Russian military speculated 2nd strongest in world

Twist there is an element of fearmongering but the problem is that whilst America has had its attention held elsewhere the Russian economy and military have been growing at a greater rate than in the US.

You're kidding right? Economy? Yes. Military? Not at all.

The only thing Russia have is their nuclear missile arsenal. Their conventional military is nothing compare to the US, and that's why their military doctrine says that if they are attacked by precision conventional weapons, they will respond with nuclear fire. Their own military doctrine says that they are inferior in terms of conventional weapons.

But could they wage a good resistance if we were to invade and occupy them? You bet!

The best resistance army in the world would be Switzerland and the US. To wage war WW2 style? US, Russia and China. Wage modern war? US.

Russia don't have transport capabilities, just like China. What wins a war abroad is supply routes... and Russia don't have them. So they would only be good fighting a war against their direct neighboors. Otherwise... like fighting a war in South America? Not so much.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
America thinks it's stronger than Russia? If so, why does it suck so badly when it comes to conflicts? How come Iraq still isn't really pacified? Wtf is happening in Afghanistan - neither the Yanks or the Ruskies could sort out a bunch of turban-wearing nomads, ffs.

I think pretty much all these "superpowers" have vastly overinflated opinions of themselves and their capabilities.

That said, Luxembourg for the win!

I don't think america sucks at conflicts, they arent alowed to fight a total war, its more of a police action. Army vs army the US could probably take any country, Plus they are fighting in a new way and are slowly learning to adapt.

Originally posted by wolfmanjack
BTW.. I just don't see a country that only has 1 ageing Aircraft carrier as all that strong. Yea i know.. Thats just the navy.. But mehh
[edit on 23-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]

You shouldnt call the Kutznetsov an Aircraft Carrier but an Aviation Cruiser.

Quite radical different stuff right there...

Thing is that a Carrier is what it is, a carrier off planes. Mobile floating Airbase to be more precise.

An Aviation Cruiser is a full blown Cruiser with all its weaponary. The difference is that the Aviation Cruiser has planes instead off Cannons to do its power projection.

Hidden under the Kutz tarmac are launchers that have missiles to destroy other naval vessels.

Hell!! Infact the Kutz has enough weaponary to destroy one CBG All by its self!!

And Russia is in the progress to designing and prepare construction off 2 to 6 NEW Aviation Cruisers with allong side them Brand new Destroyers, Cruisers and that kind off stuff, so get ready for some Massive Russian pwnage on the seas!!!

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by twistingtree


it sounds to me that maybe there trying to make people fear russia somewhat and use it with the current situation in georgia to create an even greater bias against them for some future events or sanctions. Why come out and say hey this country possibly has the second strongest in the world in the first place?

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It does have a scent of fear mongering dejour doesnt it? The fact is with people waking up to the fact that the war on terror was a scam the military industrial complex and banking industries need an enemy to keep the money rolling. So why not Russia?

We've been provoking the hell out of the russians, with that polish missile deal, etc...so looks like they're the new bogeyman..couple that with McCain hinting at a draft, and, you can see the writing on the wall pretty clearly, as far as what happens next.

Originally posted by hinky

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
America thinks it's stronger than Russia? If so, why does it suck so badly when it comes to conflicts? How come Iraq still isn't really pacified? Wtf is happening in Afghanistan - neither the Yanks or the Ruskies could sort out a bunch of turban-wearing nomads, ffs.

I think pretty much all these "superpowers" have vastly overinflated opinions of themselves and their capabilities.

That said, Luxembourg for the win!

In a real war, where no one cared what happened to civilians, much like WW2; Both the USA and Russia would absolutely rule their respective battlefields. A conflict between the USA and Russia would have worldwide consequences as I believe every ally of either side would be attacked in some form with disastrous results.

And yes, poor Luxembourg would be a fond memory.

I have to agree here. Public opinion does affect a war and the media is the public opinion. Public opinion today differs greatly from for example WWII when we dropped the bomb. For the most part everyone agreed with the decision.

Mass bombings of entire German cities was needed to win on that front as well. The civilians were killed by the thousands but did we care? Not too many did or if they did we didn't see the mass protests we do today.

Today the media is all for going to war no matter what but their motive is very different. Its not to win the war. Their motive is to get the public whipped up into a pro war frenzy and then cover every aspect of the war that is not succeeding or cover every civilian that is killed. That kind of news in their opinion is good news. Wrap the military industrial complex into that and you have a good formula for a protracted profit driven war.

In War the military breaks things and kills people. Today there is another element and that is the media. They play a huge role in who wins and who loses even if the one they portray as losing is actually winning.

In an all out war with an adversary like Iraq or Iran and taking the gloves off we would clean house and I have no doubt about that. The same goes for Russia as we have seen with Georgia. Russia cleaned house and didn't give a damn what anyone thought. I am not so sure I blame them at this point as they are losing their sphere of influence over there. Not that I am for Russia but their ideology dictates their motives just as ours does.

The bottom line is that war sucks for all involved and it should be fought to an end if it needs to be fought. That means get it done as fast as you can and then get out. It seems our actions are dictated by the media and the military industrial complex. "Only go so far and then drag it out for maximum profit and media exposure." I think Russia did the same thing and they are going to drag their feet getting out of Georgia no matter what anyone says.

It would be nice if war became obsolete but the only way that is going to happen is if Joe six pack in all countries tells the leaders to go to hell and we start running things. That has never happened in the history of our world. What would that world look like?

Anyway, that is my 2 cents...

well lets not forget about Russia neighbor...China. Personally, If it did all come down I'd hope that China would be on our side. Their infantry is staggering If China goes to war, they will make every single male fight... and those number of ground forces can turn any tide..

If you guys want a almost near situation of what the power of armies in our current global government can do, go download or by the game SuperPower 2 for the PC. It's says on the package/website that all data assembled is based on CIA World Factbook and US Naval intelligence2002(?) it's pretty damm close and scary!

it would be intresting to see what the outcome would be in our current situation, based on the 3 factors in the game.

It is seriously, the best wargames/world domination game I've played to date. China IMO is a sleeping giant!!!!

Here we go again - comparing who has the biggest you-know-what.

For one thing since when did Russia fall off the "prestigious" 2nd strongest spot? Here I though Russia remained 2nd strongest since the fall of the Soviet Union - only a very distant 2nd.

For another thing - the recent Ossetian War tells us absolutely nothing about Russia's "strength". Only a portion of the Russian 58th army took part in the conflict. The 58th army is far from Russia's elite force, and most of its weapons and equipment is largely obsolete - from the Cold War, not the newest equipment which mostly goes to the military bases near Moscow and the Far East. Heck Russia used t-62 tanks, while the T-80 and T-90 were nowhere near Georgia. Same goes for the air-strikes. Russia relied on SU-25, which can be compared to slow flying armored bathtubs with guns. And above all - Russia used a largely restrained force.

This conflict is not very telling as to the true capabilities of the Russian military. It has been suggested in Russian military circles that Russia used outdated equipment on purpose - to deny the West an opportunity to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the newest Russian equipment.



These - who is stronger and bigger - discussions are always very biased and uttely useless. Why bother with them. Live it at this - both Russia and U.S. can pound each other into pulp even before Nuclear Weapons come into play; yet both are completely uncapable of waging anti-insurgency and anti-guerilla warfare.

reply to post by Nikolas
[more If Russia did ever think of doing something as crazy as using small pox as a weapon,,, they would get blown off the face of the earth,, as simple as that,,but the whole world would be in some serious trouble

You are correct Maloy, Russia never lost 2nd place. I mean, what happened to all those weapons they had as the Soviet Union, they dissappeared? No. Russian economy is growing and when that happens, the military grows. Russia has a lot of growing to do, but slowly but surely, it will happen.

Originally posted by Russian soldier
You are correct Maloy, Russia never lost 2nd place. I mean, what happened to all those weapons they had as the Soviet Union, they dissappeared? No. Russian economy is growing and when that happens, the military grows. Russia has a lot of growing to do, but slowly but surely, it will happen.

Russian soldier, are you really a russian soldier, or are you in U.S.?

Funny that China's premier was quoted several years back as stating the PRC could field a peoples army of 200,000,00 men. The exact number printed in the Book of Revelations regarding the king of the east.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle For serveral years now, the world has been complaining about the US. A few years from now, those same people may very well be begging the US to intervene so that they don't end up russian.

And when they do, as ussual, the US will ride in and save the day, and then go back to being verbaly crapped on by the world...


Or mabye this time when the french need thier country saved, the US tells them to shove it.

reply to post by wolfmanjack


hey mate not sure you realise the russians dont need aircraft carriers there contry is big enough to build airstrips to cover the globe the only place the dont really cover is down south but what is there australia so really they dont need aircraft carriers