Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Russian soldier
My friends and family may not live the lives of kings in Russia, but they don't live "concentration death camp","hellhole" style. My father, grandfather, etc, said that the army was a great experience, and I have talked to them alot about it. I personally know people that have migrated to Russia because it IS a great country.

LOl I can guarantee that very few if any people migrate fromt the West to Russia. Why would they opt for a far lower standard of living under a quasi totalitarian regime. As people have said the Russians excel at brainwashing and propaganda, I guess Russia;s citizens aren't that smart as a whole.

My coworker's son lives happily in Russia. A man comes everyday (an American) who lived in Russia for one year and always talks to me in Russian. He said he loved the country. A 65 year old coworker who recently retired toured Russia. She said she loved it and the people were wonderful. Many many people migrate to Russia. You think not? PROVE it. I know, I watched the documentaries, I talk to people, etc. If I come upon a link on the internet, I'll post it. So, where is YOUR proof? Your saying "no one, if anyone migrate to Russia cuz Russia is low standard and brainwashing" is just an opinion. How about some solid proof?

Originally posted by Russian soldier



1 year service? I thought that the minimum was like 2 years. But I am not sure for sure. I am planning to serve for 4 years. Take a break for a while. Then do 2 more years. Perhaps I will rise rank. I might do more or less time in the military depending on how the first 4 years go. And I am ready for anything, someone messing with me, extreme war, etc. Army is my life. Russia is my life. Russian army is my life.

I meant is service in the Russian Army Mandatory/complusory etc..etc..
Countries (like Norway, South Korea etc etc..) require ALL citizens to give 1(or 2)years to the army.

Also the concept of a 'volunteer' army is confusing.
Is the US terminology related to one joining the army serving for a short time(how short?) and then going back to his/her civilian lives?
Pardon my ignorance but I'm drawing this analogy from the '3 Kings' movie!

Originally posted by Russian soldier
My coworker's son lives happily in Russia. A man comes everyday (an American) who lived in Russia for one year and always talks to me in Russian. He said he loved the country. A 65 year old coworker who recently retired toured Russia. She said she loved it and the people were wonderful. Many many people migrate to Russia. You think not? PROVE it. I know, I watched the documentaries, I talk to people, etc. If I come upon a link on the internet, I'll post it. So, where is YOUR proof? Your saying "no one, if anyone migrate to Russia cuz Russia is low standard and brainwashing" is just an opinion. How about some solid proof?

Hmm I have met several Russians who moved to Australia, because the standard of living there was so low. I lso have seen m,any documentaries telling me how crappy Russia is, so what are they any more correct than yours. Why don't you back up your statement and show us all all tehse people moving to Russia. If they are ( which I doubt ) it certainly isn't for a better tstandard of lving, you won't see any westerners wanting to move to Russia becaus ethey think it is a better lifestyle.

Your not exactly a shining example of the Russian education system either.....maybe you are, which just proves what other people have been saying.

BTW. How can you call the Russian Army gerat when teh CHechans have been kicing their arse for abot 10 years The only way the Russian Army could gain some type of victory was completely flattening cities and towns n Chechnya, hardly an elite force.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by rogue1]

posted by Daedalus3
Is service in the Russian Army mandatory or compulsory . . Countries like Norway, South Korea etc require ALL citizens to give 1or 2 years to the army. Also the concept of a 'volunteer' army is confusing. Is the US terminology related to one joining the army serving for a short time - how short? - and then going back to his her civilian lives? Pardon my ignorance but I'm drawing this analogy from the '3 Kings' movie! [Edited by Don W]

History 101. The US initiated the Selective Service System in 1940. Popular name was the “Draft.” Men were “drafted” into service. Out of a population of 140 million, the US drafted 16 million men between 1940 and 1945. Unlike the Russians and Chinese, even during the war we had a system for releasing men from service based on certain criteria. A man was awarded 1 pont for each 30 days service in the ZI - Zone of Interior. The continental United States. He got 2 points for service outside the US, and 3 points for service in a designated combat role. Non-disabling wounds got points, and heroic service got points. By 1945, the US had discharged 3 million men from service.

The 1940 draft law was reformed by the UMTS Act of 1952. Universal Military Training and Service act. Every male person in the US was required to register with the system within 6 months of attaining the age of 18. By the mid 1960s, this system broke down in many ways. Men in college or engaged in jobs needed for the war effort were often given deferments. VP Cheney received several deferments including one based on his wife’s pregnancy.

Always alert to help their own, Congress enacted a law allowing for men to enlist in the state controlled National Guard, both Army and Air Force. The NG is not the same as the Reserves. Reserves are for active duty people only, whereas anyone off the street can join the National Guards. During the Vietnam War, a special provision was added. A person could enlist for 6 months active duty training only, then return to their local guard unit for 7 ½ years of hometown duty to fulfill their military obligation. This way to avoid live combat in Vietnam rice paddies was extremely popular. Waiting lists were instituted. Because the state governors are the “commander in chief” of his state’s national guard, you can see a golden opportunity for favoritism and corruption.

Hoosier VP Dan Quayle - Bush41 - was one of the “insiders’ who benefitted from that NG provision. His mother’s family owned a strong pro Republican newspaper. Another beneficiary was the Yale playboy, Skull and Bones inductee, non-scholar Bush43. The Texas ANG found him totally worthless. To save a BCD the father had him transferred to Alabama where Bush41 held political obligations. Texas ANG gladly transferred him to ANG. Very unusual. Very rare. Now Bush43 screwed up and would not take his required flight physical. He was taken off flight status. Finally, he was returned to Texas ANG and we hear no more about him. Alabama was not about to cause a stink over a VIP son afrom Texas, and Texas did not care because he was mucking it up in Alabama. Not their problem. Anyway my point is the Rich and Famous (R&Fs) take care of their own.

By 1973, the US had to go to the all volunteer Armed Forces. A person still signs a contract with the Government to give up his civil rights, and consents to be subject to the UCMJ. And agrees that all personnel actions are subject to the exigencies of the Service. Formerly, the terms of enlistment were 3 or 4 years for the Army and USMC, and 4 years for the AF and Navy. Reenlistments were for 4, 5 or 6 years or “indefinite” which was treated as 6 years, bonus wise. Laws allow for the arbitrary extension of the service period. What the Oberfuhrer - Rumsfeld - calls “stop loss.”

The original pay scale adopted in the 1970s has not kept pace with the inflation rate or the change in demographics. Skill levels in the Armed Forces is much higher in 2006 than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Based on that, any Human Resources person would recommend an across the board pay raise of 50% or more, plus the addition of more specialities that are entitled to premium pay. But that is unlikely to happen soon.

I will brag a bit, on what I believe is true. That we Americans do spend more money on training per man, than any other Armed Force in the world. I’m experienced only in the USAF, but I think it is true in the other branches. That not only makes for more effective use of force, but it keeps casualties on our side lower than would otherwise be the case.

Originally posted by donwhite
Mr Putin is a strong leader. Who will take his place? I do not mean to say wrong or bad things about the Russian armed forces. I must try to stay with the facts. Even with the outrageous prices we pay for goods, there is no way Russia can be competitive with the US in overall military capability.

Well since your basing this view on 'the facts' i would be rather interested in seeing at least a few of them as 'the facts' i looked at suggest they are more than competitive!

Let’s play like the Russian Federation spends $40 billion equivalent on its armed forces.

What the CIA and others do is try work up a number as to what it would cost the Russians to build the product along American lines and as is quite clear that is a deceptively smart looking stupid way to go about doing things. They really do not know much other than what Russia chooses to disclose and they never did.

Army, Navy and Air Force. The US spends $455 billion in its primary budget. Add $75 billion or so for the (failed) Iraq and (failing) Afghan effort. Add 60% of our current interest payment of $400 billion a year because that much of our national debt is due to past military expenses. $240 billion. Add $30 billion a year we spend on our veterans. I do not know if the numbers above include retirement pensions for former military and civilian employees of the Government or not.

The cost of servicing Federal debt is around 200 Billion annually but i suspect that will keep rising ever faster considering the scam that is central banking.

Aside: American 4 star generals (and admirals) pay is shown as $180,000 a year. Congress has a second law that limits generals pay to $145,000 a year. Why this anomaly? Military retirement is 75% of pay. That is figured on the higher number. When a 4 star general retires, he is paid $135,000 a year. Tricky, eh?

It just shows that the American army is just a means to make select portions of the countries citizens ever richer while starving and impoverishing so many others

Resume. My point is the US spends about $800 billion a year for current and past military operations, that is, for making WAR.

Well actually most of that is corporate hand outs to the rich and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual cost of the weapon system or personal. I would be personally surprised if the defense budged could not be slashed by half simply by good accounting ( few trillion 'missing' after all) and not considering military spending as a subsidy of American industry. There are many who argue that American heavy industry ( planes/cars/ships) might very well go under in mere months if their profit margins on corporate contracts ( if the contracts were of any military use that is) were actually in line with what they get doing business with other private industries. Not sure how many government contracts GM has but i suspect it's not many taking into account their fiscal position and that will probably be true for most of the rest. If Americans knew how large a junk of their paychecks ( and their children's children) goes towards tax breaks for the the rich and their private industries there would be a revolution.

I am of the opinion that sum equals 65% of the Federation’s GDP. This has nothing to do with the quality or courage of Russia’s soldiers or sailors, but it has everything to do with the numbers of first rate equipment, the supply logistics, and the level of training which is the key to success in live combat.

Which by looking at Korea/Vietnam/Iraqi freedom does not imo say much about the American armed forces. To win wars ( and they have not won any of those; not that they did not ar first or could not have) does not seem to be a primary aim of the American armed forces anyways.

And of that, training, I believe the US has the most and the best.
See www.cia.gov...

All i can say about that is that both German doctrine and training were superior and they still lost badly in the end. Training is VERY important but it wont make up for bad strategy and general doctrine which i have always thought the USA seemed to lack when it comes to fighting their wars. It's pretty widely admitted by top level NATO military officials that from around the mid 70's it was not a question of if the USSR will reach the Atlantic coast but if it would take very much longer than 6 weeks...

If you are talking about their current training standards i would just point in the general direction of Iraq and ask how you will fight a war against a heavily armed modern enemy over which front lines you can not even begin to hope for air superiority of any way shape or form when their hiding in well fortified bases from insurgents with nothing heavier than rpg's and heavy mortars...

Stellar

i know the US spends maybe trillions every year on military, but think of what it is going to, the US is not expanding it's army, all it's doing is trying to maintain an army that is lacking what is needed to fight today's wars. what the hell would you need aircraft carrier groups, and thousands over thousands of extremely advanced unrequired technology systems. lets say to fight Iraq insurgents this is what i think you'd need:

1. 1000-1500 tanks
2. 1000-2000 APCs
3. 200k-400k troops
4. ~100-150 fighter/bomber aircraft.

basically the focus should be on troops and APCs and IFVs, all parts of the military that can deal with ground troops, mainly foot troops. you don't need stealth planes or B52s... or all the other advanced stuff the US has, the only thing i can imagine the US still ahve all that stuff int he military is for competition with another major world power, mainly russia, china, india, the rising powers....

no country in the last 2 centuries had done good in occupations or guerrilla warfare, for instance the afghan wars of the 1800's of the british, the british found it hell to control afghanistan, looka t vietnam, looka t iraq, look at the USSR afghan war, so i wouldn't say any country has been doing all too well in the last 60-70 years. since WWII, no country has won a true war. Vietnam was lost, Korea was lost, Chechnya is not all too well, afghanistan for both the americans and the USSR were and are not well.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Russian soldier
My coworker's son lives happily in Russia. A man comes everyday (an American) who lived in Russia for one year and always talks to me in Russian. He said he loved the country. A 65 year old coworker who recently retired toured Russia. She said she loved it and the people were wonderful. Many many people migrate to Russia. You think not? PROVE it. I know, I watched the documentaries, I talk to people, etc. If I come upon a link on the internet, I'll post it. So, where is YOUR proof? Your saying "no one, if anyone migrate to Russia cuz Russia is low standard and brainwashing" is just an opinion. How about some solid proof?

Hmm I have met several Russians who moved to Australia, because the standard of living there was so low. I lso have seen m,any documentaries telling me how crappy Russia is, so what are they any more correct than yours. Why don't you back up your statement and show us all all tehse people moving to Russia. If they are ( which I doubt ) it certainly isn't for a better tstandard of lving, you won't see any westerners wanting to move to Russia becaus ethey think it is a better lifestyle.

Your not exactly a shining example of the Russian education system either.....maybe you are, which just proves what other people have been saying.

BTW. How can you call the Russian Army gerat when teh CHechans have been kicing their arse for abot 10 years

The only way the Russian Army could gain some type of victory was completely flattening cities and towns n Chechnya, hardly an elite force.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by rogue1]

please explain to me what you see the americans will be doing in Afghanistand and Iraq in 10 years, the exact same thing the russians you say are doing in chechnya right now. in afghanistan and in Iraq the americans will do just what they did in Vietnam and in korea, they will roll the country back 50 years, or they will do the same thing the russians are doing right now in Chechnya or in afghanistan in the 80's, because they're ain't no damn way they can do wat they want the way theyre doing it right now, so the only thing they'll so in 10 years is probably bomb the hell out of Iraq, and then leave Iraq a backward country with extremem resentment to the US.

Every book I've read mentions that Russian Spetsnaz are in highest numbers, best trained, and best equiped in the world. And 80% of the books are US.

Talk about bad training *sarcasm*

It is widely known that Russian army trains well and strictly-this is the reason why Russian soldiers are so good. It is hard, sometimes painful, but the result are battle ready warriors. Although I agree that strategy, etc are the most important, training is important, too, especially combat and wounded preparedness.

I am pretty sure Russia is one of the strictest countries in the world, but hey, strictness builds better people/soldiers.


Rogue, I guess we have different experiences. But that doesn't mean that you are completely right, or I am completely right. Most of the documentaries I watched were on TV, so I don't know how I can find them for you. As to all the people I spoke or the ones who happily traveled there and/or lived there, I can u2u you their phone numbers.

I don't say stuff that I can't back up

Come out of a terrorist strike without having most of the hostages killed and then brag about how well trained the armed forces are.
Putin is a cunning enemy of the west and democratic, free market ideals. America remains his #1 target, even as Chechens and Jihadis slaughter Russians.
The oil money and the corrupt boom in Moscow will soon come to an end.
The Poles are firmly supporting Bush, as are other freed people the boots of Russian soldiers once pressed down on.
There is much to be afraid of in Russia.

Just a note from someone dropping in on the thread. It's starting to drift into a bash Russia in general thread. I commend both sides of the arguement for supporting their side but no need to bash the other side at the same time.

Russia's military is still a force to be reckoned with. Has it been in better shape, sure, America's military had it's own problems after Vietnam. But let's put it this way. If I am another country, I have a list about 200+ countries long that I would rather fight than Russia. The Durability of Russian arms have stood the test of time. That along with numbers and advanced weapons create a powerful combo in a conflict. Not saying they are the best or worst, just that I would rather not fight them given a chance as it would be very bloody for all parties. I would rather have them as allies than as foes.

posted by StellarX

posted by donwhite

“ . . play like the Russian Federation spends $40 billion equivalent on its armed forces.

What the CIA do is try to work up a number as to what it would cost the Russians to build the product along American lines and as is quite clear they really do not know much other than what Russia chooses to disclose and they never did.

My point is the US spends about $800 billion a year for current and past military operations, that is, for making WAR.

Well actually most of that is corporate hand outs to the rich and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual cost of the weapon system or personnel. I would be surprised if the defense budget could not be slashed by half simply by good accounting (a few trillion 'missing' after all) and not considering military spending as a subsidy of American industry.

There are many who argue that American heavy industry (planes cars ships) might very well go under in mere months if their profit margins on corporate contracts (if the contracts were of any military use that is) were actually in line with what they get doing business with other private industries.

Not sure how many government contracts GM has but I suspect it's not many taking into account its fiscal position . . If Americans knew how large a chunk of their paychecks (and their children's children’s) will go towards tax breaks for the rich and their private industries there would be a revolt.

I am of the opinion that sum equals 65% of the Federation’s GDP.

Which by looking at Korea Vietnam Iraqi freedom does not IMO say much about the American armed forces. To win wars (and they have not won any of those; not that they did not at first or could not have) does not seem to be a primary aim of the American armed forces nowadays.

And of training, I believe the US has the most and the best.

All I can say about that is that German doctrine and training were superior but they still lost badly in the end. Training is VERY important but it wont make up for bad strategy and [appropriate] doctrine which I have always thought the USA seemed to lack. [Institutionally imprecise?] It's pretty widely admitted by top level NATO military officials that from around the mid 70's it was not a question of if the USSR could reach the Atlantic coast but if it would take very much longer than 6 weeks . . [You're saying NATO is the original “paper tiger?”] If you are talking about the US current training standards I would just point in the general direction of Iraq and ask how you will fight a war against a heavily armed modern enemy over which front lines you can not even begin to hope for air superiority [for victory] when they’re hiding in well fortified bases [and fighting with volunteer] insurgents with nothing heavier than rpg's and heavy mortars . . Stellar [Edited by Don W]

I’m whipped. I will reply, but not now. I must attend a concert for which I have already paid for the admission ticket and I cannot get a refund.


[edit on 9/23/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by aaaaa
Come out of a terrorist strike without having most of the hostages killed and then brag about how well trained the armed forces are.
Putin is a cunning enemy of the west and democratic, free market ideals. America remains his #1 target, even as Chechens and Jihadis slaughter Russians.
The oil money and the corrupt boom in Moscow will soon come to an end.
The Poles are firmly supporting Bush, as are other freed people the boots of Russian soldiers once pressed down on.
There is much to be afraid of in Russia.

ok come out of afghanistan after 5 years with bin laden killed and then come brag about being the only superpower of the world, how about that....

anyway, so your saying that russia was better under yeltsin, yeltsin was the most corrupt person there i can find, the west was happy when oligarths were gobbling up the russian economy, but now that putin is cracking down on them, you say he's a communist and an enemy of the west. America has done this many times, when a country is with america, they say that it's one of the best o#reies in the world and one of the most democratic countries, but as soon as the countries start looking for thier own intersts instead of america's interest, the US start bashing them and hell might even invade them. perfect example is Iraq, before the first gulf war, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and biological weapons to use on the iranians and the kurds. now they say he killed his own people, well you supported him in doing that berfore the first gulf war, jacka**(the jackass is more about bush).

ok come out of afghanistan after 5 years with bin laden killed and then come brag about being the only superpower of the world, how about that....

anyway, so your saying that russia was better under yeltsin, yeltsin was the most corrupt person there i can find, the west was happy when oligarths were gobbling up the russian economy, but now that putin is cracking down on them, you say he's a communist and an enemy of the west. America has done this many times, when a country is with america, they say that it's one of the best o#reies in the world and one of the most democratic countries, but as soon as the countries start looking for thier own intersts instead of america's interest, the US start bashing them and hell might even invade them. perfect example is Iraq, before the first gulf war, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and biological weapons to use on the iranians and the kurds. now they say he killed his own people, well you supported him in doing that berfore the first gulf war, jacka**(the jackass is more about bush).

Cam you seriously compare the NATO 2001-2006 Afgan experience to the Soviet incursion? Are you kidding?
I did not mention Yeltsin or conditions under his governence.
I did not call Putin a communist.
Souce the chemical/bio contribution of the U.S. against the Kurds. Ties to USSR programs are much more compelling.
Read the ATS terms and conditions before you call someone a jackass again.

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Every book I've read mentions that Russian Spetsnaz are in highest numbers, best trained, and best equiped in the world. And 80% of the books are US.

Talk about bad training *sarcasm*

LMAO, care to name some of these books. Almost every book I have read puts units suck as the SAS, SASR Delta, SEALS etc well above Spetznaz. Hell the SPetnaz don't have that great a reputation

It is widely known that Russian army trains well and strictly-this is the reason why Russian soldiers are so good. It is hard, sometimes painful, but the result are battle ready warriors. Although I agree that strategy, etc are the most important, training is important, too, especially combat and wounded preparedness.

And this is why teh Russian Amy got its arse kicked in Chechnya ? Russians soldiers aren't that good, where is your proof. You never provide any

I am pretty sure Russia is one of the strictest countries in the world, but hey, strictness builds better people/soldiers.

LOL, warped logic if ever I've seen it. I think this shows how out of touch with reality you are.

I don't say stuff that I can't back up

Well where's all the backup ?

Originally posted by INc2006
perfect example is Iraq, before the first gulf war, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and biological weapons to use on the iranians and the kurds. now they say he killed his own people, well you supported him in doing that berfore the first gulf war, jacka**(the jackass is more about bush).

Eee gads some people are stupid, or are incapable of reading. The French and the Germans provided Saddam with his CW capability and BW's were never used Get your facts straight junior.

Well in regards to supporting arseholes, unfortuntately the US did support Stalin as well in WWII. I think they should have just left him to the Nazi's.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by INc2006
perfect example is Iraq, before the first gulf war, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and biological weapons to use on the iranians and the kurds. now they say he killed his own people, well you supported him in doing that berfore the first gulf war, jacka**(the jackass is more about bush).

Eee gads some people are stupid, or are incapable of reading. The French and the Germans provided Saddam with his CW capability and BW's were never used

Get your facts straight junior.

Well in regards to supporting arseholes, unfortuntately the US did support Stalin as well in WWII. I think they should have just left him to the Nazi's.

ok if germany and france supplied saddam with his chemical weapons, then i guess the US should have intervened adn said at the UN that germany and france should be condemned, plus the US knew that saddam was practicing genocide ont he kurds, yet it did nothing. plus France and Germany wouldn't do such a thing without any kind of permission, plus they are in NATO. anyhow basically the WEst supplied Saddam with his CW'.

i already said the jacka** was about bush not you... junior

btw the US supported stalin becvause the US needed to, if Hitler captured russia, then there would not be any power in the world to stop him, not the US, not the british, not any other country. Germany would have access to very vast ammounts of Oil that the Allies would have lost, and also Hitler would then have a defensive advantage, and could've reached the oil-rich middle east without having to go all through N Africa.

Originally posted by INC2006

ok come out of afghanistan after 5 years with bin laden killed and then come brag about being the only superpower of the world, how about that....

anyway, so your saying that russia was better under yeltsin, yeltsin was the most corrupt person there i can find, the west was happy when oligarths were gobbling up the russian economy, but now that putin is cracking down on them, you say he's a communist and an enemy of the west. America has done this many times, when a country is with america, they say that it's one of the best o#reies in the world and one of the most democratic countries, but as soon as the countries start looking for thier own intersts instead of america's interest, the US start bashing them and hell might even invade them. perfect example is Iraq, before the first gulf war, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and biological weapons to use on the iranians and the kurds. now they say he killed his own people, well you supported him in doing that berfore the first gulf war, jacka**(the jackass is more about bush).

Originally posted by aaaaa
Cam you seriously compare the NATO 2001-2006 Afgan experience to the Soviet incursion? Are you kidding?
I did not mention Yeltsin or conditions under his governence.
I did not call Putin a communist.
Souce the chemical/bio contribution of the U.S. against the Kurds. Ties to USSR programs are much more compelling.
Read the ATS terms and conditions before you call someone a jackass again.

Originally posted by aaaaa

Putin is a cunning enemy of the west and democratic, free market ideals. America remains his #1 target, even as Chechens and Jihadis slaughter Russians.

1. yes i can, the NATO experience is just the same, they came to Afghanistan for a a few reasons, one was to make sure there's a pro-west government in Afghanistan, second to get Bin Laden, which i'm not sure about, and third to instill some US control int eh region. the russians went in to prop up a pro-soviet government in Afghanistan.

2. you said "Putin is a cunning enemy of the west" well i guess of course he should, what would you do when a country comes to yours and says "well we wanna add this country right next to you, that has long been regarded by your people as part of there country, but still you have to still give them subsidized pricing on Oil" i'm talking about Ukraine, the US talked about adding Ukraine to NATO, but still got mad when the russians raised oil pricing for the Ukrainians. also in several Societ breakups in Asia(the -stans) and there are the "color" revolutions. of course he has to be an enemy of the west when they threaten russian national security. but no he's not against free market ideals and democracy, he didn't do much to limit democracy, there are still elections and all that, but he limited some free market, and as for if putin tired something with freedom of speech, well if you look at 90% of the countries of the world, the freedom of speech is just the same, freedom of speech from government control that is.

4. the US andor NATO supplied saddam with Chemical and/or Biological weapons to use on the kurds. the soviets didn't. the US did that because Saddam was fighting Iran, but it also knew that he was using these weapons on teh kurds too. and he had some right to though, he gave the Kurds actually at first sort of a free rule, like the papal states, but the Kurds kept making problems and wanted to bea separate country, it's the same as if lets say Californai wanted to separate from the US.

and i didn't say you called him a communist, i said the US administration did....
[edit on 9/25/2006 by INc2006]

[edit on 9/25/2006 by INc2006]

2006, You contradict yourself so much it's breathtaking.

1. Read your history. The Russians killed the leadership of Afganistan when they invaded and installed Najabullah as thier puppet.
They suffered over 15,000 deaths. NATO casualties are under 300.
They were under siege. Now the Taliban is.

2. Putin has eliminated independant broadcast and print opposition to his regime.
He has jailed political oposition and nationalized GAZPROM. Freedom of speech as defined by open criticism of government is not restricted to 10% of the world's countries. Consult Freedom House and get the real numbers.

4. You skipped your point 3 but again I'll ask you to source the contention that the U.S. supplied Saddam with anything but intellegence during the Iran/Iraq war. Nobody has a "right" to use chemical weapons on an innocent population, to suggest Saddam had a right to do so against the Kurds is despicable.

Please re-read your ill-considered post. "You" means me, not the U.S. government, and even then, I doubt you can source any official there calling Putin a communist.

Deny ignorance, stop displaying it.

Originally posted by pavil
Just a note from someone dropping in on the thread. It's starting to drift into a bash Russia in general thread. I commend both sides of the arguement for supporting their side but no need to bash the other side at the same time.

Russia's military is still a force to be reckoned with. Has it been in better shape, sure, America's military had it's own problems after Vietnam. But let's put it this way. If I am another country, I have a list about 200+ countries long that I would rather fight than Russia. The Durability of Russian arms have stood the test of time. That along with numbers and advanced weapons create a powerful combo in a conflict. Not saying they are the best or worst, just that I would rather not fight them given a chance as it would be very bloody for all parties. I would rather have them as allies than as foes.

Word for word, what he said. I came to this thread to make several points about Russia's military strength, yet this thread turned downside. First about how Russian soldiers are treated. Then political bs that's WAY off topic .....sigh

Rogue, I've read many books, including "Advanced Technology Warfare" which mentions that Russia's Spetsnaz is the greatest in terms of strength, training, and mumbers. "A military history of Aviation" mentions alot of Russia's aircraft as the best. Note that most of this books were made in USA by Americans, who are neutral on who's military is the greatest, but they made good points. I've also read countless books titled "Spetsnaz". I go to the library, and read REAL stuff, unlike what you find on the internet, most of which is made up bs, though not everything. Why don't you visit a library rogue? Joking, hahahhahaa. But you get the point. How am I supposed to link you to books, half of which I don't even remember the titles of? But if you came to where I lived, I'd be able to show you alot of those books. I don't make up stuff or pretend like I know about stuff if I know nothing about them. I read alot, and have researched alot. On the internet, I can't seem to find NOTHING. And alot of the information has been exaggarated, faked, etc. I can't trust anything on the net this days. But most important, is personal experience, especially talking to skilled people who lived through this and seen that. That is the most valuable thing. And I HAVE talked to family members who have served and seen this things.

Anyway, yeah, this thread is going off topic. The topic is Russia's military strength and compared to other countries. Please stay on topic. I'm not here to bash any country, and hope you guys arn't either.

Hm well Spetsnaz has a very spotted recrd at best. They can't be compared to say an elite special forces unit like the Australian SASR ( arguably the ebst in teh world ). SASR soldiers had a 500-1 documented kill ratio against the VC and NVA in Vietnam and an impressive record reently in Iraq and Afghanistan, which led certani 3 star US Generals saying they are indispensible.