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!

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.
军事上,俄罗斯已经有一段时间不是世界第二了,那个地方属于中国至少十年了。
俄罗斯相比,中国的资金更充足,而且两者装备水平相当,另外,中国的人口是俄罗斯的10倍。
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.
俄罗斯唯一的优势是它拥有大量核武器,在纸面上比任何其他国家都多,许多更现实的军事评估认为俄罗斯的常规部队与法国等其他欧洲国家的水平大致相同(我认为由于愚蠢的投降笑话,法国其实被大大低估了)。俄罗斯的GDP实际上与美国或中国相比更接近意大利等国家。他们的人口也只排名第9,低于巴西、印度尼西亚、印度、巴基斯坦、尼日利亚,甚至孟加拉国(当然还有美国和中国)。考虑到所有这些,即使这些年俄罗斯的部长、将军和寡头们没有从俄罗斯军队改革预算中偷走半分钱,他们也离苏联时代的鼎盛时期还差得远。
在冷战结束时,苏联花费了大约一半的国内生产总值,试图在军事上跟上西方的步伐。你不需要经济学学位就能明白这是不可持续的。俄罗斯唯一仅次于美国的是在电子游戏和表情包上,现在的俄罗斯不是苏联。
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).
编辑:另外,对于你可以在网上找到的“火力排名”或类似指数我并没有放在心上,它有几个问题。
1.我不相信很多复杂的问题可以归结为一个数字,尤其是很多事情不能以数字表达,比如士气。这些数字对于分析两个国家之间的“真空的战争”可能是有用的,这两个国家只用他们所拥有的一切来打仗,而不是现实生活中的冲突,如果这些排名是可信的,由于数字排名的巨大差异,俄罗斯应该现在已经结束了在乌克兰的行动。
2.同样这些排名来源缺乏透明度。大多数只提到了关于物流、经济和其他“侧面”因素的模糊概念,同样重要的是:你如何去解释无形资产,如人们的战斗意愿或盟友因素?这些因素算过吗?比如那些可能(并且经常发生)在被占领地区爆发的潜在叛乱,你用什么方法来计算这些成分,你是怎么把它们加起来的?你使用什么样的标准?你考虑了哪些因素?为什么?为什么不是其他人?他们甚至没有给出“完美”的标准是什么。
3.在许多这些排名中,俄罗斯和中国之间的数字差距的小数点在第3位甚至第4位。
实际上,这并不多(以印度与美国相比,在指数排名和现实生活中的差异都非常明显),两者只有2%的差异,我打赌是因为权重略有不同,或者如果我考虑不同的事情,我可以互换两国之间的排名。
我为什么选择中国是因为中国有更多的人、更大的经济、更多的科学人才、更多的盟友(是的,你没有听错一如果你认为朝鲜和俄罗斯是中国唯一的盟友,那么你生活在1990年代),而且总的来说比俄罗斯更有竞争力(不要相信BBC,CNN或Fox的每个头条新闻;如果中国真的像俄罗斯一样运作的话,就不可能从1980年代跃升到2022年的今天)。

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.
评价中国军队是非常困难的。
他们看起来又好又现代,但很可能他们遇到了与俄罗斯人相同的问题(fb等),只是我们不知道。

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
我认为你是对的,因为中国花费了大量精力来展示和宣传他们最新、最精美的装备,而我们却不知道它是否真的有效,不过,中国非常重视腐败问题,你看不到中国将军在法国拥有超级游艇或别壁。无论如何,因为有核武器,我觉得这一切都无关紧要。我怀疑俄罗斯是否会不负责任地在乌克兰上空使用核武器,不过,如果他们认为自己的领土受到威胁,那就另当别论了。让我们希望冷静的头脑会占上风吧。

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.
中国从未赢过一场现代战争。他们的战斗经验为零,如果乌克兰战争教会了我们什么,那就是仅仅拥有大量的人和坦克是没有意义的。战斗经验、适当的后勤、适当的领导、有能力的军官以及在自己国家之外战斗的意愿都是最重要的。中国可以打赢在中国的任何战争,不过它会在其他任何地方输掉任何战争。

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.
虽然这是事实,但存在一个问题,即中国比俄罗斯处于更有利的位置,因为中国有足够的人力在关键时刻度过那些遇到的问题
我是不会低估这只巨大的、可能会发怒的熊猫的。

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?
中国没有现代军事经验。是的,他们在数字排名是很好看,但我真的不认为他们有那个实力。我同意他们有大量的人力来承担胜利中所遭受的重创。在陆战之外,我看不到他们有空中和海上优势,然后在我们除去空中和海上威胁后,他们就会变成移动的靶子,这时候最大的问题将是我们如何处理投降的俘虏。

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.
其实,中国正在玩一场漫长的游戏,他们正在慢慢地、肯定地、不可阻挡地建立第一力量,最好还是改变我们对待他们的方式。

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.
你忘了朝鲜了吧?目前掌权的人是金正恩,朝鲜充当了中国和与西方结盟的韩国之间的缓冲国,金不是一个对西方友好的总统,这很好地表明他们是成功的。至于只是经验,他们也有过对越自卫反击战的失败经历。如果你把“现代战争”定义为无人机什么的话,那么大多数国家也是缺乏经验的。英国、法国、德国和其他国家只是参与了美国主导的行动,而不是自己发起行动,同时美国在这方面的记录也不是很出色。
美国最后一次真正获胜的战争是1991年的海湾战争,你可能会认为北约对前南斯拉夫的干预是另一场战争,再往后:在阿富汗用20年时间用塔利班取代塔利班,伊拉克呢?叙利亚呢?利比亚?对非洲圣战分子的战争?美国的火力和技术未能击败敌人继续生存下去的意愿。无论如何,美国的两次胜利也部分归功于强大的联盟以及美国与敌人之间的巨大差距,自二战以来,美国还没有打过一场“平等的战争”。如果中国能够组建一个平等的联盟和得到全球支持,他们可能有机会比俄罗斯做得更好。虽然俄罗斯可能拥有比中国更多的核武器,但老实说,这并不重要,拥有200或2000枚核武器的国家,基本上不会被任何大国轰炸与俄罗斯人不同,我不认为中国的精英阶层在掠夺他们的国防预算以用来购买在地中海的私人游艇。中国领导层真正感兴趣的是专注于国家进步。很多西方媒体对中国的报道都是不必要的负面消息,将中国描绘成一个落后的压迫的zf,我认识的大多数曾多次到过中国的人都对他们在过去20年左右取得的成就印象深刻。
而且我相信,与俄罗斯人认为如果不入侵乌克兰将被纳粹占领相比,中国人更在乎的是台湾是中国的一部份。

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.
真的吗?中国无法控制的被世界隔绝的朝鲜,是中国打赢朝鲜战争的证据吗?我想不是。朝鲜进攻韩国,美国保卫韩国,然后中国参战,朝鲜战争从未结束,只是在战争开始的地方宣布了一条停战线,然后中国离开了,不过美国还在,我对谁占上风有不同的看法,韩国富强,朝鲜贫穷孤立,重要的是中国离开了。
你似乎对越南、伊拉克和阿富汗感到困惑。你怎么能输掉一场其实你已经赢得的战斗呢?越南和塔利班都无法迫使美国离开,他们尝试了,但是美国想呆多久就呆多久,他们的对手只能等待,最后,美国在自己选择的时间退出后,他们还被迫进行谈判,打败一个国家并占领它20年只是证明自己可以,但这并不意味着继续这样做是你的最大利益。美国在符合自己最大利益的时候离开了。
回到你另一个错误的点,美国在战争方面有丰富的战斗经验。80%的美国军官都有战斗经验,这是十分强大的,超级大国像超级大国一样打仗,它的确无法对抗同等的力量,因为不存在这样的力量,美国凭借全球影响力、无与伦比的后勤保障和压倒性的力量取胜。美国有50个正式盟友和另外30个随时加入联盟的友好国家。
中国和俄罗斯不能那样打,因为他们根本不是超级大国,排名从第一到第二的下降幅度很大。俄罗斯仍然是第二,因为他们拥有更强的核力量,中国还在升级苏联时期的武器,甚至没有生产自己的喷气发动机。我不贬低中国的进步,也没有说他们没有庞大军队,但最近发生的事件强化了军事思想长期以来的理解,军事上你不能只数靴子和船只数量。
俄罗斯现在正在获得战斗经验,因此他们将成为一支更好的军队,从指挥官到下面的士兵,中国军队仍然是一群新手,战斗经验很重要。中国要超越俄罗斯成为军事强国,还有很多工作要做,不过它仍然可能发生,因为俄罗斯现在正处于混乱之中。但现在说中国人更强大还为时过早。俄罗斯人非常有韧性,在抵御困难时期方面拥有丰富的经验。

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.
对的,当国家发动战争时,他们有特定的目标要实现。
中国对朝鲜的目标只是使它们成为一种威慑,或者至少是美国通过朝鲜半岛入侵中国的一个巨大的缓冲带,自20世纪50年代以来,这似乎就对他们更有利。当然,金日成没有实现他的统一目标,但中苏两国是否很在乎呢?我很怀疑这一点。他们只是为了让美国没有一条可以通往他们任何一个国家的高速路,今天仍然如此,就像1950年代一样。
还有就是,一场战争的输赢并不是通过统计人数或统计战斗来判断的,这在越南战争中是一个非常明显的特征。美国的目标是什么?支持资本主义的南越政府反对北方的共产主义,考虑到西贡今天的情况,这并不是一个很大的成功。
北越的目标是什么?他们并没有打算赢得与美军的战斗,我想即使是脑残的白痴也不会相信这是个好主意。相反,他们希望摧毁美国人留下的意愿,让美国公众相信他们在那里浪费金钱和生命,然后再不惜代价的统一这个国家。当然,北方失去了数百万士兵,但他们不在乎,他们宁愿死也不愿看到南越政府站着,最后他们在1975年得到了他们想要的东西。
阿富汗人也一样。塔利班想要保留权力,即使这意味着撤退到山区并忍受美国的占领。就在十年前,他们对苏联的占领中也做了类似的事情,所以他们知道只要不是成吉思汗来了,他们就可以忍受另一个超级大国。至于美国,我记得在21世纪初,本拉登消失后,美国的目的是给阿富汗人带来自由,给他们一个现代的民主政府。然而塔利班今天毫无疑问地统治着阿富汗,而美国创建的政府在拜登决定正式撤军的五分钟后就崩溃了。
事实上,自二战以来,美国的军事占领一直没有成功,事实上,自二战以来,世界上几乎没有成功占领的例子,自第二次世界大战以来,唯一击败叛乱的大国是英国,一次在马来西亚,另一个在北爱尔兰(这是500多年的断断续续的冲突)。在这两种情况下,对手实际上都放弃了,而不是在超级大国离开时等待自己崛起的机会,否则,马来西亚将成为一个共产主义国家,爱尔兰也将拥有北爱尔兰。虽然我同意中国与美国相比没有太多经验,但他们从伤亡中吸取教训的能力是巨大的。他们可以失去最初的优势,学习后并再次出击。他们有足够的士兵和坦克来学习,就像美国在二战中所做的那样。
但现在,中国还没有愚蠢到卷入一场将演变成长期战争的武装冲突,因为他们看到了过去50多年世界各地发生的事情。相反,中国正在做的是在世界各地寻找盟友并建立联盟。20-30年前,亚洲和非洲的人们会用种族主义刻板印象来描述中国,今天,他们被视为美国或西方霸权的严重挑战者一对于那些国家认同建立在将自己从西方帝国主义中解放出来的人(即亚洲和非洲的大部分地区)来说,在适当的情况下,有些人宁愿与中国结盟,也不愿与西方结盟。
同时,如果俄罗斯正在学习,它肯定比大多数国家要慢。他们仍然犯着他们在格鲁吉亚犯下的类似错误,那是十多年前的事了与中国不同的是,俄罗斯既没有人口也没有经济来继续承受伤亡和打一场旷日持久的战争。

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.
好吧,你的反美论调已经走得太远了,让我们回到问题上来。美国是毋庸置疑的超级大国,不管你赞成与否,它都是地球上最强大的军队,这并不是问题的一部分,因为问题已经正确地假设了这一点。
问题是俄罗斯现在是否已经跌至第三位了。我已经指出它没有,中国的军队完全未经证实,并且在军事技术上过于依赖俄罗斯。中国有潜力,也有很大的“优势”,但要在军事实力上超越俄罗斯还有很长的路要走。
你声称中国拥有的这些盟友在哪里?请列出它们,他们的军事力量有多大?让我们来看看。朝鲜?与其说是盟友,不如说是依附者。。。其实没有人。那些非洲小国在战时对中国没有任何帮助,与俄罗斯一样,中国缺乏全球影响力和蓝水海军。
中国与美国的50个拥有海军、空军和三个拥有核武器的正式军事盟友完全不同。在尼日利亚建设港口设施并不能改善中国的军事态势,中国类似于英国、法国、加拿大、德国、韩国、日本、以色列的盟友是谁?大多数专家都同意我对军事力量排名的看法。

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.
我从来没有说过美国不是第一,而且你是第一,并不意味着你从来没有输过,也不能偶尔被打败。
从战争目标来看,朝鲜战争是平局或者说不确定,越南是失败,格林纳达、第一次海湾战争和塞尔维亚是胜利,阿富汗是失败其余的直到今天都没有解决。这么说几乎没有什么争议,但你试图否认这一点只是因为美国在那些战争中几乎赢得了所有战斗(朝鲜除外)。我几乎不反美,我在Quara上的回答有一半以上是关于美国今天仍然是第一的原因。
至于中国盟友:巴基斯坦。如果你不相信我,问问你遇到的中国人,他对中国来说远比朝鲜重要,伊朗也乐意与中国合作,缅甸政权也得到中国的支持。所以从技术上讲,其中两个有核武器(朝鲜、巴基斯坦),第三个可能有也可能没有(伊朗)。同时现在的俄罗斯也可以被看作是盟友。
我要说的是,中国正在利用对西方的传统不满情绪在世界各地建立盟友。中国在印度尼西亚的高铁以及非洲的公路和港口等基础设施上投入大量资金是有原因的,这些都是长期投资。当然,这些国家中没有一个国家与今天的欧洲处于同一水平,但它们都在成长,并且有很大的发展潜力。总的来说,他们的人口已经超过了整个西方国家的总和(20-30亿对大约10亿,这取决于你如何计算),因此,中国伙伴并不是微不足道。
我不认为俄罗斯会这样做,他们也没有钱这样做,他们还在支持白俄罗斯,并试图将乌克兰和叙利亚变成另一个国家。他们的影响力和中国比十分有限。他们的“真正朋友”名单比中国更有限,而且成长速度也没有那么快,你去亚洲或非洲国家,你会看到人们带着中国手机四处走动,驾驶中国汽车或乘坐中国火车。
对于俄罗斯手机(如果存在)和俄罗斯汽车和火车,你不能说同样的话。有些人已经在购买中国武器来替换他们的旧苏联装备当然,它与F-35或艾布拉姆斯的级别不同,但它比西方产品更实惠,而且条款和条件也更少。无论如何,我不相信任何将非常复杂且本质上非数字的主题归结为单个的排名的细节。我可以客观地衡量坦克发动机的马力,但是“火力”怎么看呢?你们国家的所有武器在开火一秒钟内可以释放多少焦耳的能量?这是“火”和“力量”的字面定义,显然这不是我在排名中看到的数字这些指数可能有助于比较美国与泰国的军事实力等巨大差异,但当数字非常接近时则不然。在中国与俄罗斯的案例中,差异往往只落在第2、第3甚至第4位有效数字上。如果这是出于比较目的,我会认为两者相同。他们排名的方程和他们使用的数据也缺乏透明度。如果这些是纯粹的数字,那么它们就不是那么好,因为虽然俄罗斯在纸上拥有大量飞机和坦克,但其中许多是苏联时代的东西,不会在现代战争中持续存在。如果这些数字带权重,我还可以根据不同理由分配不同的权重,并提出其他一组数字。

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.
你现在正在重新讨论之前的观点,仍然试图贬低美军,我没有兴趣和你讨论这个。
我已经就俄罗斯与中国提出了自己的观点,并表明许多专家同意俄罗斯仍然更强大。我更关注一个国家所做的事情,而不是他们渴望的事情,尤其是在军事问题上,中国有钱,有人力,但缺乏技术,缺乏盟友,缺乏全球影响力,严重缺乏实战经验。我已经强调这是多么重要。
我真的不在乎你是否同意,不过感谢您转听我的观点。

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/
我从来没有说过美军一文不值,它只是没有赢得它所参加的每一场战争,这很正常,但这并不意味着他不是第一,英国以前是超级大国,但这并不意味着英国在崩峰时期从未输过任何战争。
我不同意的是,当俄罗斯在乌克兰的表现差强人意时,人们如何将俄罗斯排在非常高的位置。如果实战经验非常重要,那么法国和英国应该在中国之上,但显然即使在你的指数中也不是这样,中国拥有而俄罗斯和美国以及其他国家所没有的是潜力。在我看来,俄罗斯处于极限,而中国有很大的增长空间,而且实力差距如此之小(基于这些指数和分数),整体中国应该领先。我也没有兴趣继续,但感谢你陪我讨论,我会让其他读者来决定谁的论点最有说服力。

Days

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.
作为一个中国人,我想说,你们没必要争吵,中国人热爱和平。但是,我要澄清的是,朝鲜半岛的分裂对我们有利,虽然朝鲜是我们的盟友,但它并不真诚,在他拥有核弹之后,两国的关系变得更加虚假,但无论如何,这是可能是唯一的军事联盟血盟。我希望你不要注意到我们的军事力量,放过我们吧,我们是软弱和无辜的。

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.
中国军队似乎也缺乏训练,就像俄罗斯一样中国军队似乎更专注于阅兵游行的编队行进。

Er Lang Wu

yep,just like what macarthur thought in korea war LOL,guess what happend to him
是的,就像麦克阿瑟在朝鲜战争中的想法一样,猜猜后面发生了什么。

Sonnysideup

Vietnam could kick China’s ass.
越南就可以打败中国。

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.
现代战争不再是战斗经验,而是你能负担得起多少导弹轰炸你的敌人,中国当然擅长这一点。

Senor Jak

Ukraine is disproving that statement as we speak
在我们发言时,乌克兰正在反驳这一说法。

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?
那么二战前美国的作战经历是怎样的呢?美国现在的战斗经验是什么?殿打杀害平民,欺负第三世界国家?你称之为战斗经验

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.
与美国发生海战是中国最不想要的,中国海军无法摆脱其陆基空中力量进行战斗,要知道发生冲突,他们将不得不出海与美国海军作战。

Farhaan Sultan

RUSSIA IS#2 and CHINA IS#3
俄罗斯排名第二,中国排名第三

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.
我不同意许多部分,并发现这种分析不准确。例如,从技术的角度来看,俄罗斯在许多关键方面都更加先进。我记得在一段视频中,根据美国情报机构的说法,中国在军用潜艇技术方面落后俄罗斯大约十年。此外,中国一直在其战斗机中使用俄罗斯制造的发动机,并且他们的许多最好的战斗机都是经过改装的俄罗斯飞机。他们最近购买了(据我所知)大约36架Su35,只是为了进行逆向工程(俄罗斯人非常不愿意卖给他们这么少的飞机,但他们同意了,因为他们需要钱)。至少,“俄罗斯唯一的优势是拥有大量核武器”是一个极具争议性的句子。

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.
“俄罗斯唯一一次排名第二”
俄罗斯人在二战中损失了2000万士兵,我不是俄粉,但我有足够的理由去记住实际发生的事情。

Rodra Hascaryo

That’s the Soviet unx,which is more than just Russia.Many of the dead are not Russians.
那是苏联,不仅仅是俄罗斯,许多死者不是俄罗斯人。

Jan Macek

Large part of the Red Army was Ukrainian troops.
红军里的很大一部分是乌克兰人。

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.
中国与美国、印度、苏联、越南作战,这些国家都比美国在2003年之后入侵的要强大得多。这十年美国基本上是在玩警察游戏。
如果有必要,中国可以负担得起每天向美国发射100多枚弹道导弹,这对中国来说根本不贵,因为俄罗斯的gdp只有中国的1/20,而中国的制造能力比俄罗斯领先几光年。

Aldarion

China…..
中国。。。
译注:就是说中国不行。

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.
我仍然认为俄罗斯是世界上第二强大的军队。其实这不是俄罗斯军队第一次被羞辱一冬季战争、巴巴罗萨行动的初始阶段、第一次车臣战争等。所有这些失败并没有阻止任何人接受俄罗斯作为世界上第二强大的军队,并且我不认为乌克兰战争有什么不同。俄罗斯仍然是唯一一个最接近美国军事能力的国家-从特种导弹到洲际弹道导弹到战略轰炸机到先进战斗机,高超音速导弹,几乎所有领域。从长远来看,我不会反对俄罗斯军队,当然不会在完全战争的情况下。

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..
毫无疑问,俄罗斯仍然是第二强大的军队。光是他们的核能力就可以证明这一点。
据透露,俄罗斯常规部队在许多方面都没有跟上西方的步伐。他们在前线仍然使用新兵,他们的军官几乎没有战斗经验,他们的后勤很差,他们的经济很弱,无法维持长期的战争。但是不要误会,他们仍然有很多人手和装备。
乌克兰的这次经历向他们揭示了许多需要做出的改变的地方。他们的军官正在获得战斗经验,他们的政客们明白了最好不要相信自己的宣传能力,俄罗斯在变得更好之前会变得更糟。但俄罗斯军队会为下一场战争做好准备.如果他们的政治家允许他们这样做。某些特定的政客必须离开,否则一切都不会好转。

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.
当前的战争与二战前发生的冬季战争非常相似,俄国人正在通过大量的鲜血吸取战争中最惨痛的教训。
整整一代俄罗斯士兵都在学习现代战争的本质,他们将修改他们的训练和战术,每当俄罗斯人被击败时,他们就会回来并根据他们所学到的进行报复,所以这不是开玩笑的事,这将使他们在下一场战争中变得极其危险。

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.
他们仍然是世界上第二强大的军队,那里没有什么改变,但需要考虑的是,有一些变量比力量本身更重要。毕竟,如果你没有智慧来正确地使用装备,或者如果你没有足够的耐力在几拳之后继续使用它们,那么再强大的武器又有什么用呢?
军队中优秀的领导者至关重要,如果你的指挥官不能有效地指挥你的军队,你所拥有的武器就会变得一文不值,同样,维持有效的供应链在战斗中至关重要,因为你需要后勤维持继续战斗,俄罗斯有实力,没有聪明的指挥官,真正没有好的后勤供应链。可能最重要的变量是士气-一个被入侵的国家比入侵它的国家更有理由战斗,特别是如果入侵的原因是基于意识形态感知的威胁,而不是其他的威胁。