You're viewing a single thread.
They may have had the potential to be a superpower, but it's apparent that they never had the leadership to conduct as one. Those inside the Kremlin bought into their own bullshit and thought of themselves as a superpower, not realising the machine within is operating on unlubricated, old, broken, and missing parts.
This seems to be a common theme with countries that feed a superiority narrative to their people and other nations.
Oh, they were a superpower as the USSR. Propping up friendly governments, supplying coups, ratfucking around where more blatant impositions wouldn't be tolerated. It was just built on a house of cards and when it imploded it imploded big.
Like when Ukraine was an SSR?
Ukraine was a powerhouse of the USSR, wasn't it? I think that's why they got so much nuke power, they produced so much food
The USSR always had serious issues. They just buried it and heavily restricted civil liberties.
Yes, but they engaged in world politics as a superpower
And that circles back to my original point.
I mean, don't look at any other superpowers you might know...
This seems to be a common theme with countries that feed a superiority narrative to their people and other nations.
begins sweating profusely
Oh, we have the military superpower. We're constantly putting it on display. We're basically a giant weapons and war factory. When we go down, it won't come from the outside (except in the form of cyber attacks and misinformation campaigns).
Though I could see it in a few decades. Russia was a powerful body full of rot. We're a powerful body with an infection. If the authoritarians win, they'll replace competent people in key positions with unqualified party-loyal yes men, and that will start the rot.
where antibiotics
They are loaded into magazines.
You're talking about the USA right? Because nobody mentioned the USA.
It seems to me that people keep begging on Ukraine. How about Russia was all of that and a bag of chips but Ukraine was developed for decades of Soviet rule to be a troop sponge where wave after wave of nato troops die and die and die keeping Russia safe.
Ukraine was made to be a rock on which superior armies dash themselves on until they break apart.
After seeing how NATO advised the Ukrainian counter attack to go I’m certain Russia would be in Poland by now if NATO was on the ground.
NATO losing to Russia in a direct conflict? Truly non credible, my brain worm friend.
On paper it isn’t even close.
NATO is not even willing to let someone else fight and win but magically when the casualties are theirs they’re totally gonna own the Russians?
It’s the same kind of numerical thinking that lead most of the world to think Russia was going to win in the opening weeks of the attack on Kiev . More money and better weapons will equal a quick and decisive win.
Russia has absorbed many hundreds of thousand of casualties. Ukraine has no choice but to fight .
Reasonable chance that NATO has trouble sustaining support for the kind of troop losses needed for a war.
Your mindset is based on the shallowness of an acute modern opinion that disregards history as much as it does immediate reality and humanism.
Or, to put it simply; you have as much growing up to do as you do learning the basics—at least to contribute in this forum.
You're new to this. Your opinion matters, but isn't valuable. It seems valuable to you now, but isn't to others. That's your first step forward to knowledge.
A strong sentiment following this conflict centers around Russia being so shit at war they can’t even beat Ukraine.
On point for a non credible defense message space.
Ukraine is fighting a literal world war alone and taking the kind of losses in a year most NATO countries wouldn’t accept in a decade.
The humanity of the situation is that Ukraine is being told to fight by countries that don’t really care at all for their losses. When they persist to exist where others fell it’s credited to Russian incompetence as opposed to fighting skill and leadership.
The history is that Ukraine was a buffer between Russia and Europe. Civilian infrastructure was over built to withstand a NATO invasion until Russia could counter attack. That’s why Asov steel works held out as a notable example. The extremely resistant electrical grid is another.
The reality is that when Ukraine no longer wanted to be a buffer between Europe and Russia decided what Ukraine would be. the west sided with Russia over Crimea. Then the Donbos ‘independent’ regions.
A decade long genocide has been executed in steps against Ukraine.
In that time the collective of NATO can’t even produce enough artillery shells to put Ukraine at a 2:1 disadvantage.
No opinions here matter. None have any value beyond glib entertainment.
There was a 5 minute video posted here about if a guided munition was an anime girlfriend.
A shit comment about Ukraine fighting better than NATO would isn’t out of line here.
There is too much to cover here.
As I said earlier, you clearly have minimal alignment of the primary understandings most others have. For starters, it's clear you don't even understand the premise of NATO.
This is like me projecting opinions about cars when I think they're made of wood and drawn by horses.
You're either a troll or you're peaking on the Dunning-Kruger graph based on some obscure and narrow-scoped details you may have garnered. It's so small picture and fundamentally flawed or entirely untrue.