Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler
As far as I know, Russia has universal conscription. Every male serves from 18 to 20 and then goes into the equivalent of America's IRR (inactive ready reserve). That means every Russian male is going to "get a taste of Hell." I just don't know how a sustained occupation would be affordable to Russia's military. I'm not even sure the US could do it now with our debt load.
|
That's not how it works in Russian real life. Only about half of the men available serve each year, often voluntarily, since serving as a conscript seems to enhance the chances to get an apartment funded by social welfare. Also, while the US has individual ready reserve and the Russians have something similar, they encounter problems known to me as a German from 1990s and 2000s Bundeswehr: activating reservists is expansive and thus avoided in huge numbers. It also disrupts the economy, though that might be less of an issue, once sanctions kick in and do their from work.
I absolutely agree on the idea of the Russian army - today and historically - sucking as an army of occupation. It's a vastly different job and Ukraine is a country of over 40 million people, nearly all of them, as of now, hostile to Russia.
However, comparing Russia's expenditures on the armed forces with that of Western nations is a folly. Yes, their spending was only USD 43.2 billion in 2020, down from USD 46.4 billion in 2019. However, Russia buys most of it's equipment internally and has comparatively very low costs for personnel. Also, in Ruble, the spending actually rose from 3 trillion to 3.09 trillion between 2019 and 2020, and then to 3.2 trillion in 2021.
This means, Russia can do much more with its funds than e. g. Germany, which spent the comparable sum of €46.93 billion in 2021. All in all, however, the allies of NATO outspend Russia by far, of course. This doesn't mean, though, Russia cannot create a bit of a mixed pickle on NATO's Eastern flank for some time.