Why has Russia been so consistently good at collapsing European

>>1780249
By being so underdeveloped that invaders forced their logistical capabilities to the breaking point in order to maintain communication and supply lines, swallowing up their manpower and resources until they were forced to retreat with a devastated army.

Asuka looks like she's struggling and being raped.

>>1780249
Because Russia or Russians don't rly care what happens to them, which is why they would destroy everything they built with scorched earth policy and retreating plus their mentality is always masochistic, they thrive off pain and it makes them stronger.

They always welcome the invader and then hug them with the cold, snowy arms of General Winter.

>>1780276
I honestly don't like the picture that much, but it's the only one remotely related to Russia I could find on my folder. I just imagine it's Shikinami and I stop caring.

>By being so underdeveloped
Didn't they defeat the Swedes precisely because they modernized themselves shortly before the Swedish invasion?

>>1780281
That explains why they can defend so well, but it doesn't explain why the would-be conquerors just go up and collapse after their failed invasion.

>>1780321
>Didn't they defeat the Swedes precisely because they modernized themselves shortly before the Swedish invasion?
No. They won by losing every battle they fought against the Swedes until the Swedes could no longer stand the cold and the battlefield attrition.

>>1780445
indeed that is exactly why these russian untermenschen won in Poltava (june) and lost at Narva (october)

>>1780530

Poltava happened after several years of Swedes suffering from Russian attration and saw the Russians with three times the manpower and four times the cannons.

>>1780249
Russia is also consistently good in collapsing itself.
>Kievan Rus
>Novgorod.
>Era of petty princes
>Collapse of Romanov
>Collapse of USSR.

>>1780809
Russia has also, in my humble opinion, had the habit of ending up with the shittier/worse alternative.

>Ends up united by despotic Novgorod rather than liberal and pluralistic Novgorod
>Ends up with Bolsheviks rather than social Democrats
>Unlike Baltic Republics fails to merge well into Capitaism, went from low-corrupt oil dependent communism to highly-corrupt oil dependent capitalism.

>>1780276
Their cities were built too far from each other for that very reason, it's not truly lack of development, it's situational development.

>>1780281
In other words, dedication and love for one's country is good trait in others, but not in them?You seem to have mentioned the climate, it's as if you've forgotten that the Mongols have conquered most of her principalities during that infamous season.

>>1780321

>but it doesn't explain why the would-be conquerors just go up and collapse after their failed invasion

Because failure to take Russia costs all of their human and material resources, dignity and most importantly, reputation.

>>1780445
No, they won by winning the battles which actually mattered, namely Gangut, Lesnaya, where they've destroyed most of their supplies and Poltava, where they've annihilated them and put an end to their alleged empire.

They've suffered for years you say?But for some reason, they've gained the ability to adapt to Russian strategies and have continued to treat the Russians as if they were the same as they were on Narva?Believe it or not, having large numbers isn't as easy as most people think, it requires vastly better logistics and significantly more resources, Just having numerical superiority means nothing, you have many examples of vast armies beaten by smaller armies. Warfare doesn't work like in video games. Nor does cold mean anything, Russians are cold too. Cold and snow is something to be expected, so is mud, and those affected Russians as much as they affected anyone else.
The fact Russians often managed to exploit their manpower potential and environment is a good thing, since it allowed them to prevail.

Real life doesn't care about heroism, only results.

>>1780809
And quite good at reforming itself after surviving a cataclysm.

>>1780839
High corruption was only present during Yeltsin's era and for the record, Baltic states are insignificant satellite states who's sovereignty sorely resides in their NATO membership, while Russia has regained her position of a world power in less than twenty-five years of time.

>>1781133
>And quite good at reforming itself after surviving a cataclysm.
Quite good in comparison too who?
nations in general seem pretty good at reforming themselves.


It's not to hard to become a superpower when you got the quantities, like a population of 130 million and nukes. Quality wise Russia is dragging behind.

>>1781170
>Quality wise Russia is dragging behind
A country that produce it's own technology and has the only fully functioning space program in our era is "dragging behind" ?

>>1780809
>era of pretty princess
hngh

>>1781133
>country that can't win a proxy war on its own fucking border
>world power
choose 1 and 1 alone

>>1781176
It got the economic size of Italy and economic diversity of Saudi Arabia, the Russian rubble rises and falls with Oil. Belarus and Baltics all got a better HDI and Balts got a better GDP per capita despite lacking the abutment natural resources of Russia. citizens Russians in Estonia and Latvia won't move back despite discrimination since they know what a drop in quality of life that would be.
Considering all that I would say Russia is dragging behind.

>>1781185
For the record comrade, Cuba is kind of sort of America's border

Why is Russia such a shithole?

Historically speaking, did Western powers overestimate the Soviet threat post-WW2?

>>1781185
Their goal wasn't to take Ukraine, but to secure Crimea.Also, their side is winning in Donbass.For the record, if it weren't for her, the American hegemony would've engulfed the entire planet by now, or at least most of it.

>>1781187
Comparing a 126 years capitalist society which was additionally propped by the European Reparation Program and the investments of the European Union with a relatively young capitalist counterpart which was systematically destroyed several times over in the last century?The fact that the sanctions have only affected 1% of their yearly revenue is proof enough that their economy is durable enough to sustain hits, even from the most powerful civilization.Besides, Russians prioritize military, diplomacy, geopolitics and technology, it's always been like that.

>>1781179
Nevsky was good-looking.

>>1781207
OP here. Aren't you Serbian-Bosnian? Why are you defending Russia so vehemently? You seem more biased now than the times I've seen you arguing about Serbia itself.

I'm quite fond of Russia, but I think it's overstretching its reach in order to look like a super-power, which may not going to be beneficial in the long run if you consider economics and the fact that it's hemorrhaging people. I do sympathize with the Russian will to stand for their own sovereignty over American hegemony, though.

As a side note, I wanted to thank your for providing the Serbian perspective to the Yugoslav wars on a thread (about Chechens, of all things) a few days ago. It was a series of very long posts you probably copy-pasted from somewhere else, but still. The thread was dead by the time I found it, but it single-handedly led me to appreciate Serbia's perspective and destroyed my hate-boner for it, so kudos to you I guess.

Not that I want to encourage namefaggotry, though.

File: 1429374449182.jpg (63KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 550x412px

>>1780321
>but it's the only one remotely related to Russia I could find on my folder.

>>1781226
No, I'm Bosnian-Bosnian and I'm not defending anyone, I'm just providing arguments that don't sound like something that came out of the Cold War era and there's a reason why I've called Russia a "world power", not super- power.America is a super-power, Russia is not.

>if you consider economics and the fact that it's hemorrhaging people

Define hemorrhaging, their quality of life had risen exponentially since Putin's administration came in, hence them mitigating and even stabilizing the birth/death ratio of ethnic Russians, which was monstrously disproportionate during Yeltsin's era( which is lauded by the West for it's "democracy and freedom-loving values).

>you probably copy-pasted from somewhere else

I have them prepared, arguments like that need to be preserved and namefaggotry is kinda good, it attracts aggression and a chance to lead more discussions at once, I need to hear more opinions so I could formulate my arguments better in the future, It's a good training for my future profession of a lawyer.

>>1781298
I know the difference between world power and super power, but I don't think Russia quite fits as a world power yet. It's getting there, and it's certainly trying to look line one, but at a high expense that may or may not be sustainable.

>Define hemorrhaging
I mean that people are emigrating en masse out of Russia.

File: 1469537414227.jpg (41KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x720px

>>1781318
While I don't like Russia, isn't a lot of that immigration central Asians moving back to Central Asia?

>One's of Russias biggest enemies is little La
Leltvia

>>1781327
>Is little Latvia
Lel

>>1781318
She does, but she's trying to pose as a super-power, which is far more dangerous for them.But regardless on that, she's classified as a great/world power by the UN and NATO, she is also a member of the Big Five.

>I mean that people are emigrating en masse out of Russia

Majority of them are central Asian seasonal workers who're returning home.

>>1781318
>I mean that people are emigrating en masse out of Russia.
~170 000 emigrated from Russia in 2014

In that very some million people moved IN and another million was born

>>1781187
Russia is not socially collapsing like West. That's a huge difference. The fact you people are literally wired to observe everything through short-term general economic benefit or loss is a further proof that your society is going to shit.
Russians don't think like that in general. And they are correct. Whatever you may think about their methods, people who rule Russia are far more competent at rulling a collective and strengthening it.
But don't believe me, you'll be alive to see it with your own eyes.

>>1780249
weather, scorched earth tactics, intense nationalism, brilliant but brutal officer class (in both the Tsarist and Soviet eras, with the exception of WW1)

in that order

>>1781340
Apart form the economic situation I don't see what the big difference between Russians and Western Europe.
Western Europe got a low birth rate and many immigrants, Russia got a low birth rate for Russians and high birthrate for non Russians.

>>1781347
That's false, Russian birth rates are rising and furthermore that's not the only issue I'm talking about.
West is stuck in a post-nationalist cosmopolitan and neoliberal quagmire from which it won't recover. Russia in general has a more "outdated" and correct perspective.
You adhere to materialism, they were cured of that in 1991, at least most of them.

>>1781347
Only among micro-minorities and Tatars, who're "Russian" than Turkic in many things, including physiognomy.

>>1781354
Shouldn't Russia's vast income inequality point towards at least the upper class adhering to materialism and being quite prone to keeping their wealth for themselves?

>>1781385
To some extent, but they're inclined to support Russia because their interests are intrinsically tied to her survival.

>>1781397
>Russia being run by and for the army and kleptocrats is a good thing

>>1781385
Upper class has been politically neutralized after Putin came to power. Russia is ruled by people who have vested interest in Russia being powerful and prosperous, at the least.

>>1781413
Even if that was true, even that is quite better than being ruled by cosmopolitan oligarchs who are keen on replacing their own population if it brings them profit.

>>1781449
So it's better to be ruled by obvious oligarchs than to have democratic governments do what it is best for their country's economy?

>>1781449
Isn't that kinda what Putin is doing by renting all that Siberian land to Chinks?

>>1781413
These Oligarchs are surprisingly loyal and kept in rigorous check by Putin and his closest associates.

>>1781133
>Baltic states are insignificant satellite states who's sovereignty sorely resides in their NATO membership,
So what would happen to them if Nato wasn't there?

>>1781340
>Whatever you may think about their methods, people who rule Russia are far more competent at rulling a collective and strengthening it.
>But don't believe me, you'll be alive to see it with your own eyes.
They were saying something similar in 1985.

>>1780249
Ne troj govno vonyat ne budesh™

>>1781590
They'd start liking Russia, with or without choice.

>>1781590
But keep their interior policies? No need to kiss the feet of some hundred thousands illegal immigrants just because of closeness to Russia?

>>1781615
For
>>1781611