“Russia – a paper tiger?”
“What makes the Russian Army so ineffective? – VisualPolitik EN2”
“Is it really realistic to think that Putin is micromanaging the war in Ukraine? Actually, it wouldn’t be the first time a politician has micromanaged a war.”
“..almost all of the soldiers are very young annd most of them, the soldiers are not even
20 years old. And this indicates one thing: They are soldiers with very little training.
This goes some way to explaining why Russian troops are dropping like flies
in the face of Ukrainian fire. And it also helps explain news like this.”
“This had an advantage: the Soviet Union had a lot of soldiers. But there’s a problem:
two years is not enough time to train for modern warfare. After World War II,
the great powers: mainly the United States and the Soviet Union, entered into an arms race. The more complex the weapons, the more training time they require. This explains why fewer and fewer countries have compulsory military service. For several decades now, almost all armies have made a huge effort. And Russia is no exception.
In 2008, the Kremlin reduced compulsory military service.”
“To recruit soldiers you need two things:
Money and people who want to enlist. Two things that are in short supply in Russia.
To give you an idea, today the Russian army has about 850,000 troops. Of these, only 405,000 are professional soldiers. And these professional soldiers do not last many years in the army.
For example, a NATO sergeant can serve an average of 15 to 20 years. In Russia, it is
rare to find soldiers who serve more than four. To illustrate this another way, a fighter pilot
in NATO has to fly more than 200 hours in order to be combat-ready. In Russia, 100 hours is enough.
And I know what many of you are thinking, why don’t they have a similar problem…
in Israel? We all know that Israel also has compulsory military service. Both Israeli men and women have to serve in the army for two years…
However, no one would say that Israeli troops are poorly trained. So what does Israel have that Russia doesn’t have?”
“To give you an idea, in 2006, suicide was the cause of death for 40% of peacetime soldiers. In 2014, 15 recruits died from hazing. As you can imagine, with such a toxic culture it makes sense that most Russian soldiers do not last more than four years in the army.”
“Also, think about it this way: over the years, Russia has evolved into a
personalistic dictatorship… and that affects the military as well. Think of it this way: During the Soviet era, Russia was an unmitigated dictatorship.
However, the main decision-making body was the POLITBURO: the central committee of
the Communist Party. It could have up to 35 members who discussed all decisions. Today,
the Soviet politburo no longer exists…
A personalist dictatorship. A political system where one man has the power to
make all decisions without any counterweight. And yes, this is noticeable in the military… Russia has a special army as well. A kind of Praetorian Guard for Putin…This body was created by Putin himself in 2016. It has more than 340,000
troops… They take direct orders from the President. It may surprise you but this is a constant in almost all authoritarian regimes. Many of you would think that the military functions better in a militaristic dictatorship than in a democracy. However, authoritarian leaders rarely fully trust their military. That explains why Putin has created his own praetorian guard.
In principle, this “national guard” is not a body designed to fight in war. You could say that they are a kind of militarized police. Their objective is to safeguard the territorial control of Russia itself: that is, to fight against insurgent groups, terrorist groups and to suppress protests.
Think about it: this national guard is not trained for a war as such. Sending them to the front is a death sentence for many. But remember that we are talking about an entire political system centered around the figure of Putin..
practically all the key figures in the military and military industry are handpicked by the President..
In other words, there are no checks and balances on the Kremlin’s power. That means that no one can question Putin’s own miscalculations… including the invasion of Ukraine.
In a democracy, the intelligence services would have been free to inform the president. They could contradict him and explain to him the reality on the ground. The generals themselves could prepare a realistic strategy based on a more thorough knowledge of their military muscle. But, in this case, what we are seeing is a former KGB officer, with no military training, making decisions without anyone standing up to him and
that explains failures…”