"Is Russia’s Military Better Than America’s?" Topic

"The U.S. will devote $700 USD billion to its budget for 2018, dwarfing Russia's $66 USD billion effort, a trend that has been consistent for more than 25 years. Yet Russia's military has been relatively successful in recent conflicts, while the U.S. armed forces have not. American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq became multi-year quagmires, in comparison to Russia's rapid victories against Georgia and Ukraine.

The short-lived U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war was also another mistake, whereas Russia's long-term intervention in the Syrian civil war is expected to eventually pay for itself. Russia's military is certainly weaker than that of the U.S., but ill-fated decisions across multiple administrations have steadily undermined American power….."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmmm, the families of 200 or so Russians that recently had their contracts end rather abruptly in Syria might suggest otherwise.

Then, of course, there's that great "success" they had in Afghanistan, before we got there, so…….

Someone's been nipping at the vodka bottle again, too much, me thinks.

Don't make me laugh.

The Russians will primarily be relying on upgraded T-72s for the forseeable future as the T-14 Armata is proving too expensive to field in quantity (only 100 ordered so far).

The Russians have developed a small but advanced hi-tech component (regular/volunteer soldiers, improved artillery, drones, T-14s etc) which has been trialled in the Ukraine with some success.

The rest of the Russian army is still effectivelty T-72s and conscripts…

Plus ca change

The Red Army hasn't faired too well in large scale operations, both Chechen wars were expensive in men and materiel, they performed well against Georgia but appear to be 'spotty' in the Ukraine….haphazard reports from both sides there. Deployment in Syria is in security more in support of land based air operations with some SF groups targeting enemy forces…….
All very difficult to compare, the US Army is often reported on in a negative fashion whilst the Russian media are prone to hyperbole……

I think the author has confused the military with civilian generated policy. The Russians have done better in their interventions than the US have but that has little to do with the US military and the Russian military. It's the governments of the two sides coming up with strategic goals and using their resources to accomplish them. In that case I would say yes, the Russians have done a better job than the US has.

I would point this out- how well would Russia have done if they switched military capabilities with the US? The answer to that question speaks volumes when it comes to comparing the two militaries.

Tgunner gets it right.

Comparing Russian "interventions" in Georgia and Ukraine (two former elements of the Soviet Union) with American/ NATO "interventions" in Afghanistan and Iraq is stacking the deck. They're just not good comparison points. The Russians had significant separatist groups eager to work with them and rejoin the fold. In Syria too they had a long standing relationship with the government of Syria and the enthusiastic cooperation of the Iranians. Those are major differences in the political dynamics of those wars.

I agree that it comes down to what Tgunner says. It's not a question of bare military performance (nobody could rightly think the Russian military is on the same level as the American in that regard). It's a matter of picking their fights. Russia would not have had the capability of invading a hostile Iraq and dismantling its goverment and armed forces – which is just as well because politically it would have been a deeply stupid move. As it was for us.

To me the question just reinforces the point that you can spend an infinite amount of money on weapons and it's no cure at all for bad decision making.

I'll give credit where credit is due. Russia's annexation of Crimea was masterfully done. But that was more about skillful LEADERSHIP than anything else. Russia's ventures into eastern Ukraine, not so successful.

The Russian army should not be taken lightly…
Frederick,
Napoleon,
Abdul Hamid,
and Hitler will testify to this..
Still, on the whole, the US army is tactically superior. Whether operationally superior or not is arguable. We did steal most of their concepts here.

On other levels… see Tgunner's post.

Joe Collins

Hamstring the Russians with ROEs like our troops have to deal with, and see how well they fare.

The article makes some really good points and acknowledges the fact that "side by side, the US military is clearly better." Which leads to the conclusion that its misleading title is intentionally provocative in its declaration so that we would click on it.

In a nutshell, Russian military interventions have been more successful than American ones over the last two decades because their political objectives are more limited. American military adventures abroad are idealistically driven and internationalist in nature, requiring nation-building and spreading the ideals and institutions of liberal democracy to the places where they occur. America is the "Shining Beacon of Democracy" and the "Great White Savior" after all.

Russia has no such pretensions or ambitions. Every political decision boils down to "how does it benefit our own interests?" Realpolitik underpins Russian foreign policy, not Idealpolitik. Realpolitik ensures that a nation doesn't embark upon ill-conceived military adventurism abroad because it requires the nation to ask itself the key question: "Does it threaten our core interests?" Georgia and Ukraine becoming members of NATO definitely met that criteria.

Even when the answer is "no," as in the case of Syria, Russian objectives are far less ambitious. Russia "needs" or wants a base of operations and permanent footprint in the Middle East. Syria is the only place that's suitable now that Libya has descended into chaos thanks to America and NATO, so it sends a small contingent and a few planes (okay, and a much mocked, smoke-belching carrier that's more symbolic than practical) as part of a coalition of pro-Assad Syrians, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah and various volunteer militias comprised of fighters drawn from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The Russians are there to assist and support, not to take the lead.

The Russians have taken the harsh lessons of its Afghanistan experience to heart, while America is repeating its mistakes in Vietnam over and over again.

It is good to be a tyranny and that the only source of strategic decisions is the tyrant. You don't need to worry about pesky Public Opinion, nor Opposition enquiries in the Parliament.

Tgunner's + 3

Don't forget Syria…. they don't peformed bad….

Amicalement
Armand

"It is good to be a tyranny and that the only source of strategic decisions is the tyrant. You don't need to worry about pesky Public Opinion, nor Opposition enquiries in the Parliament".

Yep, that's a good force multiplier for the Russian and Chinese military.

Nether armies are what they once were. We wont see 200 plus divisions grouped into armies. Politics/Leadership aside, we have more experience and we can AFFORD to extensively train more than others. That's the cutting edge.

Easier answer
NO

Agree with TGunner.

If/when the Russians really start putting money into training their troops, then we can start talking about them being better than the US military.

I mean, the BMP-T or whatever they're calling that T72 variant with 2x 30mm and all the missiles for urban combat support is kinda indicative of what's going on. It's an engineering solution to a training problem. It takes a lot of training to get good coordination between tanks and infantry in urban terrain. So instead the Russians build a tank to fill the job that infantry should be doing.

Post War Soviets were obsessed with Operational Level actions, their units were designed to perform similar operations to Bagration and perform these with better integrated combined arms thanks to the widespread use of APC's and more importantly IFV's.

Of course keeping units of such high level means cutting corners, most troops were conscripts and they boosted units with liberal doses of artillery support and massive air capabilities.

But the Soviets broke their teeth on Afghanistan, sending in a blunt hammer to do surgery.

The endemic problems of the Red Army endured with the post communist Russian army in places like Chechnya. The Russians scaled back their units and introduced new more versatile brigades, more mobile and better integrated with good close support artillery.

They still keep old style divisions for the "dirty work" they must be anticipating.

Training has somewhat improved and while it's still a mostly conscript army they are trying to add more seasoned troops to boost these units.

But the comparison with the US is still inferior on the tactical level, though they are still quite capable on the operational level and a serious threat to places like Europe, who are discovering that their own attempts to switch to quick worldwide intervention forces has left them without heavy assets and it will probably take years or a serious threat from the Russians for politicians to wake up to the problem, until then USA>Russia>Europe.