2022.4.14 发布在 世界看中国 栏目

Quora讨论:鉴于俄乌战争中的表现,俄罗斯现在还能被认为是世界上第二强大的军队吗?中国躺枪! 世界看中国-第1张

Rodra Hascaiyo

Russia hasn’t been the znd strongest for a while.That spot belong to China for at least a decade now.They are far bette r funded and at least equivalently equipped compared to Russia.Plus,they got 10x the population of Russia.
The only advantage Russia has is that it has lots of nukes,more than any other country on paper.Many of the more realistic military assessment put Russian conventional forces about the same level as other European countries like France(which I think is massively underrated thanks to the stupid Surrender memes).
The GDP of Russia is actually closer to countries like Italy than US or China.Their population is also rank at#9,below Brazil,Indonesia,India,Pakistan,Nigeria,and even Bangladesh(and,of course,US and China).With all that considered,even if the Russian ministers,generals,and oligarchs didn’t steal even a halfpenny from the Russian armed forces refor mation budget over the years,they could be nowhere close to their peak during Soviet era.
And the Soviets spent about half of their GDP towards the end of the Cold War trying to keep up with the West militarily.
You don’t need an economics degree to understand that it’s unsustainable.The only time Russia is znd to America is in v ideo games and in memes.Russia is not the Soviet unx.
EDIT:Also,I don’t really take the”firepower ranking”or similar indices you can find online very seriously.There a re a few issues with it.
1.I don’t believe a subject as complicated as this can be boiled down to a single number,especially when many things d oesn’t have inherent quantity,like morale.It might be useful to analyze”wars that exist in a vacuum”between two cou ntries that only fight each other with everything they have but not real-life conflict.If those rankings are to be believ ed,Russia should have finished their operations in Ukraine right now because of the massive disparity in index ranking2.Lack of transparency of their methods.Most only mention vague ideas of accounting for logistics,economy,and other “side”factors.Just as importantly:HOW?
How do you account for intangibles like willingness to fight or network of allies?Did you even count that?What about potential insurgencies that can(and often do)erupt in occupied areas?What method did you use to calculate the componenti ndices and how did you add them up?What kind of weights do you use?What factors did you consider?Why?Why not others?ey don’t even give what the benchmark for”perfect”is.
3.In many of these rankings,the difference between Russia and China falls into the 3rd or even 4 th decimal place/signif icant figures.
In practical terms,that’s not much(compared to,say,India vs US,in which the difference is stark both in index ranking and in real-life);that’s like 2%difference.I bet with a slightly different weightage or if I account for different things,I can flip the rankings between the two countries.
Why I choose China is because China has more people,bigger economy,greater pool of scientific talents,more allies(yes really-if you think North Korea and Russia are China’s only allies,you’re living in the 199os),and generally far mor re competently run than Russia(don’t believe every headline from BBC,CNN,or Fox;there’s no way China leapt from what they were in 198os to what they are today in 2022 if they were run like Russia).

Magnus Johansson Rating

China’s military is very hard.
They look good and modern but it’s quite possible they suffer some of the same problems as the Russians(corruption etc).We simply don’t know.

Senor Jak

I think you’re right in terms of China spending a lot of effort in showcasing and propagandizing their newest and fanciest hardware,without us ever getting an idea if it actually works.However,China takes corruption seriously.You don’ts ee Chinese generals owning super yachts or villas in the French riviera.It’s all pretty irrelevant anyway,due to the nukes.I doubt Russia would be irresponsible enough to use nuclear weapons over Ukraine,but if they fee their home territory is threatened,that’s a different story.Let’s hope cooler heads will prevail

Jay Snead

China has never won a modern war.They have zero experience in combat.If the Ukraine war has taught us anything,it is t hat simply having large number of men and tanks is meaningless.Combat experience,proper logistics,proper leadership,cap able NCOs,and a willingness to fight outside of ones own country are all paramount.China can win any war in China.It will lose any war anywhere else.

Killian Diaz

While this is true,there is the issue that China is in a more comfortable position than Russia there since China has the manpower to go through those growing pains when push comes to shove.I’d rather not underestimate the large,potentially angry panda.

Mike Chang

China has no modern military experience.Yeah they got the numbers but I really don’t see them as fighters.I would agree they will send in 5.Divisions and suffer heavy losses for a victory.Outside of a land war I don’t see them gaining air and sea superiority.Then after we take that away they turn into moving targets.The big issue is what do we do with allt he millions of Chinese soldiers that surrender?

Frank Domburg

Also,they’re playing along game.And slowly,surely and unstoppable they’re building the no 1 force.Better change our w ays towards them.

Rodra Hascaryo

What about Korea?The fact that the guy currently in power is Kim The Third and will act as a buffer state between China and the Western-aligned S.Korea,as opposed to some Western-friendly president,is a good indication that they were successful.As for just experience,they also had their unsuccessful invasion of Vietnam.If you define”modern war”as the one with drones and everything,then most countries are inexperienced too.Britain,France,Germany,and the rest only partic ipated in American-led operations instead of launching one on their own.American records are also not stellar.
The last war America won properly was the Gulf War of 19 91,and you might argue the NATO intervention in former Yugoslavi a as another.Afghanistan = Replaced the Taliban with the Taliban after 20 years.Iraq =?Syria =?Libya =?War against Jihaddist in Africa =?American firepower and technology has failed to beat the willingness of the enemy to outlast them.In any case,the two American victories was also partially thanks to having a gigantic coalition and massive,massive dispa rity between the American strength and the enemy.America hasn’t fought an”equal war”since WW2.
If China could assemble an equal coalition and global support,they probably stand a better chance of doing it right comp ared to the Russians.While Russia might have more nukes that China,honestly,it doesn’t really matter.A country with 200,or 2,000 nukes are basically immune from being bombed by any major power.Unlike the Russians,I don’t think the Ch inese defense ministers,generals,and elite class is robbing their defense budget to buy private yachts in the Mediterranean.Chinese leadership is interested and is focnsed on progress.A lot of Western media reporting on China is unnecessarily negative and portray China as this backward oppressive Orwellian regime;most people I know who had been to China repea tedly are impressed by how much gains they’ve have made in the past 20 years or so.And I’m convinced that the Chinese fe el much more strongly that Taiwan is part of China compared to how Russians feel that Ukraine is going to be overrun by Na zis if they didn’t invade.

Jay Snead

Really? Mad Kim in charge of North Korea, isolated from the world and uncontrollable by China is evidence China won the K orean War? I think not. North Korea attacked South Korea, the US defended South Korea, then China entered the war. The Korean war never ended, there was simply an armistice line declared at roughly the same place the war started. Then China left. The US remains. I have a different idea of who prevailed. South Korea is rich and prosperous, North Korea is impoverish ed and isolated. China is gone.
Yon seem confused about Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. How can you lose a war in which you win every battle? Neither Vie tnam nor the Taliban were able to force the US to leave. They tried. The US stayed for as long as they wished and their adversaries could do nothing about it but wait. In the end that were forced to make negotiations for a withdrawal and both violated the terms of it, after the US withdrew at a time of its own choosing, Just because you can defeat a country and occupy it for 20 years does not mean that it is your best interests to do so forever. The US left when it was in its own bes tinterests. And to get back to the point that you are missing, the US gained immense combat experience doing this. 80% of US officers have combat experience and that is huge.
The Superpower fights wars like a Superpower. It can’t fight a equal force for one doesn’t exist. The US wins with globalreach, unmatched logistics, and overwhelming force. The US has 50 formal allies and another 30 friendly nations that join it from time to time in coalitions. China and Russia cannot fight like that because they simply aren’t Superpowers. Ther e is a huge drop-off from #1 to #2. But Russia is still #2 because they have the nuclear forces and because they have the technology. China still fights will a lot of upgraded Soviet weaponry. China doesn’t even make it own jet engines.
I don’t discount Chinese progress or suggest they don’t have a damn big military. But recent events have reinforced what military minds have long understood. You just can’t count boots and ships. Russia is getting combat experience right now a nd they are going to be a better army because of it. China’s military remains a group of rookies from the commanding gene ral to the greenest private. Combat experience counts for a lot. An awful lot. China still has a lot to accomplish to surpa ss Russia as a military power. It can still happen, because Russia is in a tailspin right now. But it’s too early to anoi nt the Chinese. And the Russians are damned resilient and have extensive experience at withstanding hard times.

Rodra Hascaryo

Yes, really. When countries go to war, they have specific obxtives to achieve. China’s obxtive with North Korea isjust m aking them a serious deterrence, or at the very least a big bloody speedbump for any potential American invasion through t he Korean peninsula. That seems to be working in their favor since 1950s.
Sure, Kim the First didn’t achieve his reunification goal, but do the Chinese and Soviets care much about that? I doubt so. Just so that America doesn’t have a freeway into either of their country. That is still true today as it was in 1950s
. Because of that, it’s very possible to lose a war after winning all the battles. Not all wars are won by body counts or battle statistics. That is the very defining feature of Vietnam War.
What was the American obxtive? Prop up the capitalist South Vietnamese government against the Communist North. Considerig what Saigon is formally called today, that’s not a big success. What was the North Vietnamese obxtive? They didn’t setout to win set-piece open battle against US military. Noteven braindead idiots can be convinced that’s a good idea. Inst ead, they wanted to outlast American will to stay, convince the American public they’ re wasting their money and lives ove r there, and eventually unify the country again, no matter the cost. Sure, the North lost millions of soldiers, but they d on’t care. They rather die than see the South Vietnamese government stand. They got exactly what they wanted in 1975.
Same thing with the Afghans. The Taliban wanted to retain power, even if that means retreating into the mountains and end uring American occupation. They did something similar against Soviet occupation barely a decade prior, so they knew they c ould endure yet another superpower as long as they’ re not led by Genghis Khan.
As for America, I remember back in 2000s when Osama bin Laden seemingly vanished and then it was all about bringing freed om to Afghans and giving them a modern democratic government. Taliban rules Afghanistan today without question while the merican-created government crumbled like five minutes after Joe Biden decided to formalize the withdrawal.
As a matter of fact, no American military occupation since WW2 has been successful. In fact, almost no occupation in the world since WW2 has been a success. The only major power to have beaten an insurgency since World War 2 was the British, once in Malaya and another in Northern Ireland (which was also an on-and-off conflict for 500+ years). In both cases, the opponent actually gave up as opposed to biding their time to rise up when the superpower left. Otherwise, Malaysia would be a communist state and Ireland would also own Northern Ireland.
While I agree China has not much experience compared to America, their capacity to absorb casualties and learn from it isimmense. They can lose their initial attack, learn, and attack again. They have enough soldiers and tanks to learn on-the-go, like America did in WW2. But right now, China is not stupid enough to get into an armed conflict that will turn into a protracted insurgency because they see what has happened in the past 50+ years around the world. What China is doing ins tead is finding allies and building coalitions across the world. 20-30 years ago, people across Asia and Africa would describe China using racist stereotypes best not repeated. Today, they’ re seen as a serious challenger to American/Western hegemony-and for people whose national identity has been built around liberating themselves from Western imperialism (i.e.much of Asia and Africa), that’s far more appealing than Western media give credit for. Given the right situation, some would rather ally with China than the West.
Meanwhile, if Russia is learning, it’s certainly slower than most. They’ re still making similar mistakes that they made in Georgia, and that was over 10 years ago. Unlike China, Russia has neither the population nor the economy to keep takin g casualties and fight a long war.

Jay Snead

Well,you are getting far afield in your anti-American diatribe.Let’s get back to the question.The US is the unquestion ed Superpower.It is the most powerful military on earth,whether you approve of it or not.That is not part of the question,which already assumes this,properly.The question is whether Russia has now dropped to number 3.I have made the point that it has not.I have made the point that China’s military is entirely unproven and dependent on Russia for far too mu ch military technology.China has potential and much”upside”,but they have a ways to go to surpass Russia in military power.
Where are these allies you claim that China has?Please list them.How militarily powerful are they?Lets see…NorthKorea,which is more of a dependent than a ally and then…nobody.All those small African countries are no help to C hina in wartime.Like Russia,China lacks global reach and a blue-water navy.China has nothing at all like America’s 50 f ormal military allies that have navies,air forces,and three have nuclear weapons.Building port facilities in Nigeria do es not improve China’s military posture.Who is China’s Britain,France,Canada,Germany,South Korea,Japan,or Israel?
Most experts agree with me on the ranking of military power.

Rodra Hascaryo

I never said that the US is not number 1. Just because you’ re number 1, it doesn’t mean you never lost or can’t be bea ten every once in a while.
Looking at the war obxtives, Korea was a draw/inconclusive, Vietnam was a loss, Grenada, First Gulf War, and Serbia werewins, Afghanistan was a loss, the remainder are unresolved to this day. There’s hardly anything controversial in sayingt hat but you were trying to deny that only because America won practically all the battles in those wars (except in Korea).
I’m also hardly anti-America; more than half of my answers in Quora is about how America is still #1 today, As for Chinese allies: Pakistan. If you don’t believe me, ask the next PR C citizen you meet. They’ re far more important and significant to China than North Korea. Iran will happily go with China too and the Myanmar regime is also being propped up by China. So technically, 2 of them have nukes and a third one may or may not have one (Iran). They’ re even turning Russia into their junior partner.
What I’m saying is China is building allies around the world by leveraging traditional resentment against the West. Ther e’s a reason why China is spending so much money on infrastructures like high speed rail in Indonesia and roads and ports in Africa. They’ re all long term investment. Sure, none of these countries aren’t at the same level as Europe today, bu t they’ re all growing and they have plenty of potential to go. Collectively, they already have more people than the entire Western countries combined (2-3 billion vs roughly i billion, depending how you count). So, the Chinese network is hard ly small or insignificant.
I don’t see Russia doing any of that. They don’t even have the money to do so. They’ re sticking with Belarus and tryin g to turn Ukraine and Syria into another one. Their reach is even more limited than China. Their list of “true friends” are more limited than China and are not growing nearly as fast. You go to Asian or African countries, you see people walki ng around with Chinese phones and driving Chinese cars or commuting in Chinese trains. You can’t say the same with Russia in phones (if they exist) and Russian cars and trains. Some are already buying Chinese weapons to replace their old Soviet stuff. Sure, it’s not the same level as an F-35 or an Abrams, but it’s far more affordable and comes with less terms and conditions than Western products.
In any case, I don’t believe the details of any ranking that boils very complicated and intrinsically non-numerical subjects into a single index. I can measure the horsepower of a tank engine obxtively, but “firepower”? How? How many Joules of energy all your country’s weapons can put out in a second of firing? That’s the literal definition of “fire””pow er”and obviously that is not the numbers I’m seeing in the pictures.
The indices might be useful to compare massive disparity like the military power of America vs Thailand, but not when the num bers are very close to one another. In China vs Russia case, the difference often fall only on the znd, 3rd, or even 4th significant figure. If this was for engineering purposes, I’d consider both the same. There’s also a lack of transparency on the equations they use and the data that they’ re using. If those are pure numbers, then they’ re not that good be cause while Russia got plenty of airplanes and tanks on paper, many of them in storage are Soviet-era stuff that wouldn’t last in a modern war. If it’s numbers with weights, I can also assign different weights with justification and come up w ith some other set of numbers.

Jay Snead

You’re rehashing old territory now,still trying to disparage the US military.I have no interest in discussing that wit h you.I have made my points about Russia versus China and shown that many experts agree that Russia remains more powerful I put more stake in what a country has done than in what theyaspire to,especially in military matters.China has the mo ney,it has the manpower,but it lacks the technology,lacks allies,lacks global reach,and severely lacks actual war experience.I cannot emphasize enough how important that is.I really don’t care if you agree or not.Thanks for listening to my viewpoint.

Rodra Hascaryo

I never said the US military is worthless,it just doesn’t win every single war it has been in and that’s normal.Brita in was the superpower before,but that doesn’t mean Britain never lost any war at their peak.What I disagree with is howpeople rank Russia very high when their performance in Ukraine doesn’t quite reflect that.If combat experience is supremely important,France and Britain should be above China,but clearly that’s not the case even in your indices.What China has that Russia and every other country outside America don’t is the potential.The way I see it,Russia is at their lim its while China has plenty of room to grow and the power difference is so thin(based on those indices and scores)that overall China should be ahead.I have no interest in continuing either,but thanks for the sparring practice.I’ll let other readers to decide who has the most compelling argument/


As a Chinese,I want to say,you don’t have to quarrel.The Chinese love peace.However,I would like to clarify that thedivision of the Korean Peninsula is beneficial to us.Although North Korea is our ally,it is not sincere.After he had t he nuclear bomb,the relationship became more false,but in any case,the only military alliance…Blood alliance.I hope you don’t pay attention to our military strength.Let us go.We are weak and innocent.

Mike Chang

The Chinese military seems poorly trained as well and just like Russia the people on top get promoted by bribery.They bu Ik of Chinese military service seem to be focused on marching in formation for parades.

Er Lang Wu

yep,just like what macarthur thought in korea war LOL,guess what happend to him


Vietnam could kick China’s ass.

Hanhan Song

The modern war is no longer about combat experience but how many missiles you can afford to bomb your enemy,China is cer tainly good at that.

Senor Jak

Ukraine is disproving that statement as we speak

Senlin Qiu

so what was the combat experience of USA before WWII?What’s the combat experience of the USA now?Beating up bunch of 3rd world countries killing civilians?You call that combat experience?

Jay Snead

A naval war with the US is the last thing China wants.The Chinese navy cannot fight beyond its land-based airpower.They will have to get out on the big ocean to fight the US Navy.

Farhaan Sultan


Siamak Tahaei Yaghoubi

I disagree with many parts and find this analysis inaccurate.For example from the technological point of view,Russia ismore advanced in many crucial aspects.I remember from one of Binkov’s videos that according to the U.S.in telligence agencies,China is about one decade behind Russia in military submarine technology.Also,China has been using Russian made engines in their combat aircraft and many of their best fighters were modified Flankers.They recently purchased(as far a sI can recall)about 36 Su35s just for reverse engineering(the Russians were very reluctant to sell them this small number of planes but,they agreed because they needed money).At least,”The only advantage Russia has is that it has lots of nukes”is an enormously arguable sentence.

Jon Phillips

“The only time Russia has been#2″The Russians lost 20m soldiers in WW2&were camped out at the Reichstag I’m no fan of Russia,but I have enough dignity to remember what actually happened.

Rodra Hascaryo

That’s the Soviet unx,which is more than just Russia.Many of the dead are not Russians.

Jan Macek

Large part of the Red Army was Ukrainian troops.

Hanhan Song

China fought with America,India,USSR,Vietnam,which were all much,much stronger than America invaded after 2003.Ameri ca was basically playing police game these ten years.China could afford launching more than 100 ballistic missiles to Amer ica on a daily basis if it is necessary,it is not expensive for China at all since Russia’s gdp is merely 1/20 of China’s and Chinese manufacturing capability is lightyears stronger than Russia.



Dan Kim

I’d still rate Russia as the 2nd strongest military in the world.This isn’t the first time Russian military was humili ated-Winter war,initial phase of operation Barbarossa,the ist Chechen war,etc.All those failures didn’t stop anyone from accepting Russia as the znd most powerful military in the world,and I don’t think Ukraine war is any different.Ru ssia is still the only country that comes closest to matching the full breadth of U.S.military capability category per category-from SSBNs to MIRV ICBM to strategic bombers to advanced fighters,hypersonic missiles,the whole gamut.I wouldn’t bet against Russian military in the long run,certainly not in a total war situation.

Jay Snead

Russia is still the znd most powerful military,have no doubt.Their nuclear capability alone would make them so.What has been revealed is that Russian conventional forces have not kept up wit The West in many ways.They still use conscxts,th eir officers have little combat experience,their logistics are very poor and their economy is so weak that they cannot sustain a long war.But make no mistake,they still have a lot of men and equipment.This Ukraine experience has revealed tothem many changes that need to be made.Their officers are getting combat experience.Their politicians are learning not t o believe their own propaganda.Russia is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.But the Russian military wi Il be much better prepared for the next war..if their politicians allow them to.One particular politician has to go or nothing will get better..

David Bivans

The current war is very similar to the winter war that occurred before WWII.The Russians are learning the most difficultlessons of war,by spilling large amounts of blood.An entire generation of Russian soldiers is learning the truth about m odern warfare.And they will modify their training and tactics.And any time the Russians get defeated,they come back and take vengeance based on what they learned.So this is not something to joke about.This will make them extremely dangerou sduring the next war.

Howard Noland

They’re still the second most powerful military in the world,nothing has changed there,but what’s important to consid er is that there are variables that are of even greater significance than strength alone.What good,after all,are powerf ul fists if you haven’t got the wits to use them correctly,or if you haven’t got the stamina to keep using them after acouple punches?Good leaders in a military are crucial,if your commanders can’t effectively command your army,the weapo ns you’ve got at your disposal become worthless,similarly,maintaining an effective supply chain is crucial in battle,a syou need to be able to keep the fight going as long as is necessary.Russia has the power,what they don’t have is inte lligent commanders,and what they really don’t have is a good supply chain.
Possibly the most important variable of all is morale-a country being invaded simply has more reason to fight than a country invading it does,especially if the reason for invasion is based on an ideologically perceived threat,rather than a real one.