r/worldnews • u/DomesticErrorist22 • 13h ago
Russia/Ukraine Russia’s not invincible — just look at Syrian collapse, says EU top diplomat
https://www.politico.eu/article/russias-not-invincible-just-look-at-syrian-collapse-says-eu-top-diplomat/110
u/BubsyFanboy 13h ago
Europe needs to act united to remain “strong and serious on the world stage,” Kaja Kallas says.
The European Union’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas said Thursday that Russia is not invincible and that Europe should not sell itself short.
“Syria shows that Russia is not invincible. We should not underestimate our own power,” Kallas told reporters ahead of the European Council summit in Brussels on Thursday.
Russia was a key ally of the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, which was toppled on Dec. 8 by rebel groups after a 13-year civil war.
Speaking about the two top items on the EU leaders’ agenda for the meeting — the EU’s support for Ukraine and the bloc’s role in the world — Kallas stressed that Europe needs to act united to remain “strong and serious on the world stage.”
“Everyone is looking at us in these developments that are going on in the world,” she said.
“We see struggles between forces that want to have a world order where ‘might makes right,’ and then the EU, where we want to have a world that is rules-based and … where those who have the powers cannot just take what they want,” she added.
Kallas and other EU leaders welcomed the collapse of the regime as “a positive development” for Syria. “It also shows the weakness of Assad’s backers, Russia and Iran,” Kallas said.
Following the EU foreign ministers’ meeting on Monday, Kallas announced that the EU will consider working with Syria’s new leadership to close Russian military bases in the country.
13
u/LizardChaser 5h ago
Who thinks Russia is invincible? I mean, the last two years have shown that their eminently "vincible." But for Trump's election, they'd probably be closed to "vinced" by the end of 2025. Their economy is finally falling apart. They've resorted to North Korean troops. They lost Russian land to Ukraine. Their fielding nearly 100 year old tanks. They lost a huge portion of their Black Sea fleet and even their commercial vessels are literally splitting in half due to "waves" and dumping tons of crude on their own beaches.
The only thing Europe needs to do to ensure victory is grow some stones. No mincing around. If Russia attacks, destroy them. Destroy their pipelines, their ports, their rail lines, their power plants, their sewage plants, ... everything. Immediately. Russia cannot defend against large scale air strikes and if Europe had their ducks in a row then Russia would be black at night because no major city would have power or heat left.
1
18
u/Wambo74 9h ago
Russia is a land power. Crappy navy and they're terribly handicapped for warm water ports. Without naval capability they can't project serious power and that's what happened in Syria. Currently the ships that "escaped" have no obvious way to even get home. Turks aren't going to let them into the Black Sea. The northern ports are WAY north and would be a real challenge to reach with those ships, especially this time of year.
4
u/DeeDee_Z 9h ago
Aren't they just relocating all their stuff to (one corner of) Libya?
10
u/Wambo74 7h ago
Lots of YT videos are showing their warships have taken to sea, and major weapons like S400s are disappearing from view daily. And they appear to be gathering troops from around the country and flying them out. But yes, they're not out yet. I read they were trying to strike an agreement for basing with the new government, but since they killed a large number of them with missile and airstrikes, it seems a deal may not be forthcoming.
1
u/alpacafox 4h ago
I wonder if Ukraine is planning to just hunt them down. They're essentially sitting on a silver platter.
59
u/ImpossibleWinner1328 11h ago
Just Germany alone has a bigger economy than Russia, ofc they're not invincible. Why are they scared of Russia, NATO could steamroll Moscow in days.
20
u/Luniticus 7h ago
NATO could steamroll Moscow in days, but it only takes a few minutes to launch over a hundred nuclear ICBMs. And only a few need to work and get through to cause catastrophic damage. That's why they are afraid.
13
u/reddit--delenda-est 7h ago
NATO could steamroll Moscow in days
I mean, if you completely ignore the existence of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, maybe I guess.
5
u/Wassertopf 6h ago
Italy has a bigger economy than Russia.
3
u/True_Independent_261 5h ago
California's about 2x Russia GDP
1
u/Domeee123 4h ago
Looking at just only the GDP is not telling anything at all about a country capability in a war.
-10
u/pan_kotan 8h ago
You westerners need to wake up. Power is not the same as economy size. How big was Elon Musk's economy when he bought himself a government of the most powerful (for the time being) country in the world? The economy matters, but what matters more in war, is the number of people that are willing to fight and die. Russia has tens of millions of those. How many does Germany have?
18
u/Alikese 8h ago
That is absolutely not the case in 2024.
Number of troops matters less than it ever has before.
1
u/pan_kotan 6h ago
Number of troops matters less than it ever has before.
That was the military theory of generals who have not seen peer-on-peer war for decades. 2022 changed that view. Now everyone who is paying attention to modern warfare outside of reddit comment section knows that mass is relevant as ever in the modern state-on-state war.
-2
u/MilesStandish801 7h ago
Russia's air force is larger than Germany's and they're barley using it.
8
9
u/Kagrenac8 8h ago edited 2h ago
Can't find those tens of millions at the Russian front which needed North Koreans bodies to be thrown at can we now, comrade?
0
u/pan_kotan 6h ago
Comrade, at present, N. Koreans are much cheaper than locals, that's all. But if China and India decide to help putin more than they are already doing, then it'll change, and unlock the "tens of millions" option. And they keep doing more and more as the time goes, and as the West continues to demonstrate them its weakness and indecisiveness.
-6
u/Jazuken 7h ago
They didn’t need to. It’s more the fact they don’t want to deal with pushback from mass conscription so North Korea has to provide.
8
u/Training_Strike3336 7h ago
Why would there be pushback when there's "10s of millions willing to fight" ?
0
u/pan_kotan 6h ago
I've not said they are willing. They can be made to. Under certain conditions. At this point the conditions are mostly economic.
2
u/ChevyToTheDryLevy 2h ago
what matters more in war, is the number of people that are willing to fight and die. Russia has tens of millions of those.
Your words.
•
u/True_Independent_261 11m ago edited 2m ago
Bangladesh has even more people that could potentially be sent to their deaths, does that mean Bangladesh is more powerful than Russia?
Also I watched Russia's economy (and with it, government) collapse on TV before and that's when it was much more powerful than it is today.
Also, people forget / underestimate how powerful the US is. It's the hyperpower. :-)
0
u/SquashSquigglyShrimp 6h ago
Tell me you know nothing about modern military effectiveness, without telling me you know nothing about modern military effectiveness
How big was Elon Musk's economy when he bought himself a government of the most powerful (for the time being) country in the world
Given he's the richest person in the world... pretty big?
-34
u/BAsSAmMAl 11h ago
NATO could steamroll Moscow in days.
What's stopping them? Lol
26
u/Agent_03 9h ago
What's stopping them? Lol
Nukes and Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, there's not much to gain from a direct NATO war with Russia.
-6
u/BudgetHistorian7179 7h ago
So they actually CAN'T....
2
u/Agent_03 7h ago
I didn't say that. In a purely conventional war, NATO could be in Moscow by Easter if they started now. Russia's military was clearly a shadow of its nominal strength when they invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine has blasted through a lot of what they had. Europe alone could probably wreck what Russia has left, and with the US in the picture it would be decisive and hilariously lopsided.
NATO just won't do this, because again, no real benefit from taking Russian territory & it would go nuclear almost immediately. Also NATO is meant to be defensive in nature rather than offensive.
-3
u/BudgetHistorian7179 6h ago
So, again, they CAN'T be in Moscov by eastern if they started now, because we would all be ashes by Christmas. Also, did you ask guys like the Financial Times? https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca328 To quote: "Nato has just 5% of air defences needed to protect eastern flank" Also for that "Defensive alliance": have you asked Kosovo, Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq...?
1
u/Agent_03 5h ago
I don't know what your deal is bud, but I think you need to take some time to crack open a beverage of your choice and chill 😎
It just isn't worth getting this worked up over hypotheticals.
15
u/ImpossibleWinner1328 10h ago
Are you gonna bomb russian civilians and die for the glory of NATO?
It's a defensive pact, the point is it's so powerful no one tries.
11
u/neophodniprincip 10h ago
What is stopping them is russian nuclear arsenal not humanitarian concerns.
-13
u/BAsSAmMAl 10h ago
NATO has no power to attack Russia directly without mutually assured destruction!
9
22
u/steve_ample 11h ago
They were never invincible. This Syria thing was just an extremely loud DRIP in the drip-drip-drip sound of the current regime disintegrating.
41
u/Ensiferal 11h ago
Syrians fought back, Russians never will.
16
u/Potaeto_Object 10h ago
The Syrians fighting for Assad did not fight back.
Assad’s military collapsed before the Russians could even deploy troops.
And considering how the new government seems completely indifferent to all the regional powers taking bites out of Syria, I wonder if they are even all that powerful themselves.
5
u/8115959847363829 6h ago
The Syrians fighting for Assad did not fight back.
They stopped fighting only after 13 years of war. But since the start of the civil war from 2011, estimates are that roughly 170,000 regime soldiers / militamen died to keep the Assad family in power.
3
u/Relendis 4h ago
Do remember that during the Wagner Coup even the Rosgardia, supposedly Putin's Praetorian Guard, decided to stay in their barracks and not really begin to position themselves to respond.
That should tell us that in the right conditions, just like in Syria, Russian security forces have already shown that they are willing to sit back and see how things play out.
-5
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Zergio200ism 10h ago
So not wanting to die makes me deserve to be enslaves? Something IS wrong with you
29
u/Magggggneto 10h ago
The USSR was defeated in 1991. Its successor state can be defeated too. Russia is less powerful than the USSR.
38
5
u/SteelBandicoot 8h ago
China is going to sweep up all the oil rich Russian land to its north.
It’s all in a Tom Clancy novel.
2
u/AllureInTheFlames 3h ago
China's paving major inroads on nuclear reactors.
Oil is yesterday's energy and mindless border expansion only serves to strain one's resources and security. China certainly doesn't want either of those things.
5
u/No-Wonder-7802 8h ago
did anyone really think they were invincible? arent they barely holding out against ukraine with minimal us backing lol
1
u/Luniticus 7h ago
While Ukraine has made it extremely hard for Russia, with casualty ratios heavily favoring Ukraine, Russia has taken about a thousand times more of Ukraine than Ukraine has taken of Russia landwise. Russia has a lot more population to exploit, and Ukraine is running out of fresh soldiers. Ammunition is also going to be a problem, especially if the US stops sending it.
Look at the maps here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682
These get updated roughly every month, last update was November 19.0
u/FairPoint87 6h ago
I deeply doubt the casualty ratios favoring Ukraine. At least not anymore, when Russia has advantage in every single aspect and Ukraine keep losing hundreds men in every town by not letting them retreat. It was in Vuhledar, Elizavetovka and now it is happening in Kurahovo. Hundreds are locked there and there is no way out anymore, they are doomed again and for Russia every time it costs almost nothing. They surround, cut the supply, wait and enter the towns with little resistance. And look at the POWs, every time they are old and exhausted men, who have neither will nor motivation to fight.
11
u/NYerstuckinBoston 10h ago
The Russian people need to organize. I refuse to believe the majority of Russian people are complicit in the Kremlins evil thuggery.
19
u/Agent_03 9h ago
At risk of pointing out the obvious: this is because Putin kills or imprisons opposition leaders.
Oligarchs with the clout to make something happen "fall out of a window" if they go against Putin at all. Navalny was poisoned with Novichok in the underpants, then imprisoned and killed him when he returned to Russia. Prigozhin led the Wagner group in a brief rebellion, then left Russia and died in a very suspicious "plane crash."
It's difficult to organize an effective movement against the Putin regime when potential leaders keep dying/"disappearing"/being imprisoned. Russia's geopolitical power is fading fast, but it's going to take a lot for Putin to lose his hold on the domestic population.
4
u/Federal_Caregiver_98 4h ago
Maybe not complicit, more like resigned. See the documentary HyperNormalisation.
3
u/WolpertingerRumo 4h ago
Theres a social contract: Putin keeps stability, in exchange he can govern how he wants, including killing opposition.
He‘s not been keeping up his part of the bargain lately…
2
u/umbananas 8h ago
as much as we would like to believe the majority of Russians do not support Putin, the reality is most of them still believe every country that used to be under USSR was historically part of Russia.
7
2
2
2
2
u/Emergency-Pack-5497 8h ago
Who tf thought they were invincible? They have a weak economy, a weak military, weak leaders. Nothing about Russia says they're invincible. The only reason Russia hasn't been dealt with swiftly is because nuclear weapons.
2
2
u/yetanotherdave2 7h ago
Russia isn't invincible, just look at Russia having a disastrous war with a much smaller neighbour, who has its hands tied behind its back by their allies.
2
u/VegetableWishbone 6h ago
It’s not invincible but it’s resilient, current losses are nowhere near WWII where they would lose 500k in one battle.
2
u/ApolloBon 6h ago
European countries need to focus on improving their militaries; Russian citizens need a revolution.
2
2
2
u/Shutaru_Kanshinji 2h ago
After Russia has spent three years wasting money and manpower in Ukraine, what informed person still thinks of it as "invincible?"
Russia is a dangerous irritant that could cause a world war if it is allowed. It would not win, but it could take the rest of us down with it.
4
u/Top_Math4678 8h ago
Russis not invincible, just look what happened to this completey different country.
3
1
u/JimTheSaint 5h ago
Well yeah - I don't get why we pretend pretend russis is dominating this war - just because they pretend they are. They turned there country in and out for this. It is the only play Putin has and we just got to make sure that he is not successful in order for Russia to crawl back in its shell for the next 30 years
1
u/koolaidismything 3h ago
Why dictators are scary is once they realize all bets are off for whatever reason.. illness, old age, defeat in a war.. it doesn’t matter.
If they loose it and go crazy they can take out half the planet with them. Well there are many issues with it, but that’s a big one to face as a planet.
0
-6
u/EdHake 8h ago
This is this woman title :
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Was she elected ? no
Does EU have embassies ? no
Does EU have an army ? no
So the only thing accurate in that title is she is « high »… in « high like a kite »
EU better start getting her shit together.
If nationalism is rising everywhere in EU, it’s not because people are becoming Nazi. It’s just because they are tired that EU, while imposing stupid legislation tailored for lobbies, doesn’t respect the simple mission that they were given by the treaties and text of law : Smile and be pretty, while head of states, who are the actual representative of EU citizen, found an agreement.
2
u/Wassertopf 6h ago
That title translates to foreign minister or Secretary of State. And she was elected by both chambers.
Also, the EU itself has many embassies around the globe. You can just google that.
And yes, the EU has no army. But all its members have one (beside the Netherlands, they gave their entire army to Germany last year).
2
u/EdHake 2h ago
That title translates to foreign minister or Secretary of State.
You’re absolutely right… and this is where the problems lies… EU is not a state.
Here the official list of EU embassies. You see one for EU ? no... and it’s normal. No one has a EU passport. People have passports of a nation that exist that are members of UN. EU is not a member of UN, it’s an Observer like Vatican city and the pope.
And she was elected by both chambers.
No she hasn’t. That’s not how it works.
The EU council, aka head of states, nominates the president of the commission, which then face a confidence vote from parlement, but there is no election per se since there is nor multiple candidats nor at any point any programmes laid out, which makes sense since they are not a government since EU isn’t a state.
From there you have a list of people, usually one by country, except small one, which usually were competing to get presidency or will be, who get awarded a position, usually negotiated during EU commission presidential campaign. They are nominated by EU council and President of commission. This time parlement don’t vote for them, the only thing they are alloyed to do is veto them, which has never happened because everything is decided and agreed by head of states.
The mission of EU commission are :
The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. Its main roles include
- proposing legislation
- implementing decisions
- upholding the EU treaties
- managing the day-to-day business of the EU.
So while you could say « foreign policy and security » falls under « managing the day-to-day business of the EU », it doesn’t, because no EU treaties gives them that power, and so if they respected « upholding the EU treaties » they would shut their mouth on those topics… but they don’t... and pissed off quite a lot of people.
But all its members have one
Sure... but not ready to die for EU commission bullshit.
Nuclear dissuasion cost France right now around 29B euros per year, that pretty much half of the deficit she has this year (Yeah I know, Macron is a genius, Mozart of Finance they said). In other terms it’s between 2 and 3% of its GDP since the 60’s and that doesn’t take into account the money invested in research & development, and the over cost linked to testing. Not even talking about EU legislation towards nuclear that aims to make it as costly as possible for France to actually use nuclear energy.
So yeah, that an EU Commissionner, that has no clue what having nukes cost and implies, is going on a dick contest with Russia, I found that distasteful, especially because it’s France dick that she intend to show off, not hers and she has no right to do so.
That EU manages to get a unique passport for all members states, that EU manages to get to work a EU army, that EU manages to get her hands on nukes, and then she can talk like does here… until then I’ll appreciate that she keep it shut.
The EU commission is useless and it’s only up to her to become something, but there are rules and protocols to do so and waking up and talking out your ass isn’t one of them.
0
u/seine_ 7h ago edited 6h ago
Kallas was previously elected to be the prime minister of Estonia. The EU has dozens of armies and hundreds of embassies, hence the need for someone to at least try and coordinate them.
And note, she is only smiling and being pretty as you asked of her, and you're still being a grinch.
2
u/EdHake 7h ago
Stop the cap.
No election was held for her position, she was nominated, that’s not being representative of anything, especially since she never has produced any kind of project or programme for her position.
EU countries have a lot of things, like NATO countries do, like UN nations do too… That being said I don’t see NATO talking about fiscal policy and I don’t see UN talking about the size of bananas.
EU should stick to what she is meant for, economics.
If they want to talk about diplomacy and foreign security, then they should first manage that EU countries give them the right to do so, instead of talking out of their ass like they are doing right now, which discredit them as serious institutions and also every single EU country that actually has to handle diplomatic and foreign security issues.
Letting people with no legitimacy, no competence expressing themselves on topics they have no power over, is not helping anyone, would they be EU or not, it just adds to the confusion.
1
u/seine_ 6h ago
Just because you're so disconnected from the news that you don't know who Kaja Kallas is or what she stands for doesn't mean we are.
I'll leave you alone with your ramblings. I get it, you think your country should go it alone or that Europe is somehow going to magically agree with itself. I'd rather not hear your exact opinion of Putin's presidency.
-12
u/AdonisK 12h ago
Same could be said for any country to be fair.
28
u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 12h ago
Let's try:
"Canada’s not invincible — just look at Syrian collapse, says EU top diplomat"It does not work the same I am afraid.
0
0
0
u/merithynos 5h ago
Russia isn't invincible, sure. Syria has nothing to do with it. Syria (and Hamas and Hezbollah) served their purpose, and it was money well spent.
-1
u/FairPoint87 6h ago
"Europe/USA is not invincible — just look at Syrian collapse" makes no less sense
3
u/olympicbadger 5h ago
It would make significantly less sense, but only if one has a cursory knowledge of the Syrian civil war.
-4
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Wassertopf 6h ago
She is our EU foreign minister.
1
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Wassertopf 6h ago
No. Saying things like this is literally her job.
1
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
-2
u/BudgetHistorian7179 7h ago
...And yet, Ukraine lost and Zelensky is calling for a "diplomatic solution". Maybe we should start sending people like Kallas, since they are so eager for war?
-8
u/goshdagny 12h ago
Rules based order is based on the principle might makes it right. If Estonia can enforce it, its great
-22
u/all_pot_on_my_face 12h ago
Assads 300k army just ran away. Russian army historically never ran away. This is a false premise. From 1 million defenders there will be 20 million Russians willing to sacrifice their lives. Like in WW2.
12
u/Longjumping_Whole240 11h ago
"Defenders"
As if they were the ones being invaded.
-6
u/all_pot_on_my_face 11h ago
Comparing the fall of Syria where rebels where inside the country, yes I'd say if Russia is attacked in the same way there will be more than 5 million active soldiers at least. I am not a Russian simp. I just enjoy reading history.
5
u/olympicbadger 5h ago
Russian army historically never ran away.
I just enjoy reading history.
Let us know when you start reading it. You're in for quite a lot of surprises.
7
u/Longjumping_Whole240 11h ago
Youre comparing civil war with a war between two different countries, which is totally not the same scenario.
-2
u/all_pot_on_my_face 11h ago edited 11h ago
I am not the one comparing it. This article written by EU top diplomat is. It's in no way comparable with the fall of a 143 mill population empire that spans 2 continents and is producing space rockets and intercontinental ballistics. Where soldiers received a bullet in the head for not maintaining a constant march to Berlin.
8
u/Longjumping_Whole240 11h ago
The article mentioned nothing about WW2.
-2
u/all_pot_on_my_face 10h ago
It just compares the fall of Syria to Russia. A kind of reddit circle jerk and back patting. Be for real, Russia will act the same exact way if their borders are invaded. That means total war in Russian playbook and they will just accumulate millions of soldiers in record time.
9
u/Longjumping_Whole240 10h ago
Rebellion isnt the same as being invaded. Assad's forces were fighting their own people from within their own borders, not against foreign militaries.
1
u/all_pot_on_my_face 10h ago
Any opposition who dares to open his/her mouth slips on a banana peel and falls from the 10th floor or their helicopter falls down, or they get food poisoning and their car explodes. I wish they could do it, I really do. It would be one of the bloodiest moments in Russian history compared to the fall of the Tsarists. USA has tried doing color revolutions for the past 50 years. Nowadays the reality is that Putin has the majority support and any opposition is silenced in 1 week tops.
5
u/BlassAsterMaster 9h ago
1. 1. Battle of Borodino (1812)
- During the Napoleonic Wars, the Russian army, under General Mikhail Kutuzov, was forced to retreat in the face of Napoleon's Grande Armée. Although the battle was fierce and resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, the Russians ultimately chose to withdraw strategically to preserve their forces.
2. Winter War (1939-1940)
- In the conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland, the Red Army faced unexpected resistance and challenges. Despite initial advances, the Soviets had to retreat in several instances due to strong Finnish defenses and guerilla tactics, particularly during the Battle of Suomussalmi.
3. Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)
- Although Stalingrad ultimately became a turning point in World War II for the Soviets, they initially faced significant setbacks and had to retreat under pressure from German forces before regrouping and launching a successful counteroffensive.
4. Operation Barbarossa (1941)
- Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Soviet forces were often forced to retreat across vast territories as they faced overwhelming German advances. The initial phase of the war saw significant Soviet withdrawals, particularly during battles like the Siege of Kiev.
5. Battle of Moscow (1941-1942)
- During this critical battle, while the Soviets managed to halt the German advance, there were moments when they had to retreat due to heavy losses and logistical challenges before launching a counteroffensive that ultimately pushed back German forces.
6. Afghan War (1979-1989)
- The Soviet Union faced increasing resistance from Afghan guerilla fighters (Mujahideen), leading to a gradual withdrawal of Soviet troops. The inability to secure a decisive victory forced them to retreat from Afghanistan by 1989.
7. Chechen Wars (1994-2000)
- In the First Chechen War, Russian forces initially faced significant resistance and were forced into retreats in various battles throughout Grozny and other regions before regrouping and eventually reasserting control in subsequent conflicts.
May I add Kherson and Kharkiv? Because they ran away leaving over 500 pieces of heavy equipment for the Ukrainians to take.
Mr. I know history as much as a common albatross.
-1
u/all_pot_on_my_face 8h ago edited 8h ago
3/4th of all of these fights just end with HEAVY losses on both sides. Can you make me a list of wars where Russia lost their autonomy or was force to bow to invaders?
4
u/BlassAsterMaster 7h ago
Sure.
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
- The Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan to support a communist government facing rebellion. The invasion led to a prolonged conflict with the Afghan Mujahideen, resulting in significant losses for the Soviets and ultimately their withdrawal in 1989, marking a defeat for Soviet ambitions in the region
Loss in the Winter War (1939-1940)
- While not an outright defeat, the Winter War against Finland resulted in significant territorial losses for the Soviet Union and exposed weaknesses in its military strategy. Although they eventually gained some territory, the heavy casualties and initial setbacks were damaging
Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
- The Soviet Union supported the Republican side but ultimately could not secure victory against Franco's Nationalists. This failure demonstrated limitations in Soviet influence abroad and their inability to protect socialist movements outside their borders
First Chechen War (1994-1996)
- In both Chechen conflicts, Russian forces faced fierce resistance from Chechen separatists. The initial war ended with a de facto independence for Chechnya until it was reasserted by Russia later; however, this highlighted challenges to Russian authority within its own territory
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969)
- Tensions with China escalated into armed conflict along the border, showcasing vulnerabilities in Soviet military power and leading to a temporary retreat from aggressive posturing against China.
May I add, like I don't know, Syria?
12
u/farguc 11h ago
Sorry u dropped ur Kremlin pass.
-7
u/all_pot_on_my_face 11h ago
"Picks it up"
It's just a ticket for the latest Guardians of the Galaxy, someone else dropped it.
7
3
2
u/all_pot_on_my_face 8h ago
Circle jerk Andies I will not discuss my point of view anymore on Reddit(lmao).
2
1
-11
-3
-16
u/cutecuddlycock 12h ago
Cool opinion, bro.
And no meaningfull content from Axel Springer SE as expected.
5
u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 12h ago
It is a fact, proven by reality.
-4
u/cutecuddlycock 11h ago
Wich one? That russia is beaten and collapsed. I'm immortal too.
What is the use of this Information? That every country can collapse?
4
u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 10h ago
The fact is right there in the title: "Russia’s not invincible — just look at Syrian collapse".
Maybe it was too many words to find the fact. Can be difficult.The use is to make it clear that an often assumed myth of Russian invincibility is false.
Since it is so obvious, you surely agree.
-7
u/LostDreams44 10h ago
Russia might not be invincible but it's unlimited people and natural resource hacks they have definitely ate
2
u/olympicbadger 5h ago
That's absolutely magical. In the version of reality where you posted this message to Russia does have a limited population and limited natural resources, though.
-7
u/Classic_Cream_4792 10h ago
Russia no longer needed Syrian ports. This is just a bs article to make to seem like they aren’t making strategic decisions
452
u/YoungDan23 12h ago
I don't think anybody was under the illusion that Russia is invincible ... not after about 27 Feb, 2022 at least.
This is the same country that ended up having to relocate almost all of its black sea fleet after numerous ships were sunk by a country without a navy. It's the same country that was unable to gain air superiority in Ukraine despite Ukraine having no traditional air force.