Nah, not second best. That's probably just Americans that still haven't registered that the Soviet Union is gone. Generally there was an awareness that the glory days of the USSR was gone and that Russia's small economy could only maintain a crude army.

However, people didn't think that it was THIS bad. This is bad even for Russia's military budget, where one can only assume that there was a lot of corruption on all levels to produce the state of the army at the start of the war. And of course, with things like this, it just got worse by the day.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i mean the budget is not the determining factor here. The russian economy is able to support a strong military, since they have a lot of resources and can produce a lot of shit by themselves. So even if the budget is low nominally it should suffice. Also Russia had a fairly good GDP per capita, far exceeding that of Ukraine and on par with many EU countries.

The issues are corruption, nepotism, lack of career chances for dedicated people and so on.

[–] zhunk@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

And the brain drain since the start of this war has been massive

[–] rayyyy@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Russia ditched communism for capitalism, and yachts, and stuff.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One might even say corporatism, given their direct rulers are the billionaires who came out on top in the rush to scavenge the corpse of the USSR.

[–] Dee@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago

given their direct rulers are the billionaires

[–] polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

corporatism

That's just capitalism.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Russia's military budget in size is sufficient for anything Russia would need defense-wise (and even aggression-wise, TBF) to a full extent. It's just that most of the money was being stolen through all these years. It's rotten to the bone.

About glory days - USSR's military was really something "second best" somewhere in the 50s, when it was a system built for some actual overarching doctrine.

With every year passing Soviet bureaucracy was more and more entangling itself into a knot of financing and prestige and cabinet power struggles, so by 80s it would have like 4-8 simultaneously produced and operated models of tanks, with similar technology and details etc, but similar wouldn't mean interchangeable, in fact there would be almost no interchangeable details between them. It was similar in any other area. Standardization (which Commies love to present as planned economy's advantage) was a farce.

The bureaucratic system responsible for every part of the system would fight tooth and nail for some external benefits and provide some external service, soldiers and students would be used on harvest campaigns and housing construction, and the main purpose would be cemented, never reevaluated (I mean, everything changes in 5 years in real world in any area, and the Soviet doctrine has not evolved much between Korea and Afghanistan), and in fact lost.

Which is why, say, Soviet personnel carriers wouldn't protect against anything. Their purpose was to move fast, be amphibious, be hermetic, be cheap to produce. Cause the plan was that after all the boom-boom stops in the Global Thermonuclear War, one would need to move infantry over burnt irradiated land, fast.

It really was in planning and function a bit like the Galactic Empire, be it the Azimov's one or the Star Wars one.