When I do a comparison between Russian and European weapons, I feel that the Russian weapons are better than European weapons.
For example the Russian Air force is second in the world and utilizes the most advanced airplanes. For example I can’t find any European airplane deals with Su-T50, although it hasn’t been mass produced. And the other airplanes such as Su-37, 34,33and MiG 29, 31 and 35 are better than European airplanes such as Rafale, EF or Mirage 2000 or at least are in the same position.
They have most developed combat helicopters (Mi28 and kamov 50, 52) and they are better than European helicopters and are almost as dangerous as the US combat helicopters.
The Russian Air-defense systems and missiles are great and are best in the world. Just remember S-400 or S-500 and Alexander.
They have a large and strong armored force. T90, 94 are good examples. Although the European Tanks such as leopard and Leclerc are very advanced.
Their Navy is not as developed as European Navy except that their Submarines which I think are better than even the US submarines. For Example Victor class submarines are masterpiece.
Also their Electronic technology and drone are their weak points. Although the European countries don’t have advanced drone. In this part the US is first and Israel is second.
Russia is one country with one army while the European countries consist of several countries with several army. So the management of a war will be easier for Russia.
And the last thing, Russia has the largest nukes stockpile even more than US. I think if they blow up their nukes in their land, the whole of the world will be destroyed.
It is my opinion, maybe it is wrong.
Maybe you're just misinformed.
Let's take a look at their submarines.
Russian subs were never all they were cracked up to be. The loss of a Russian sub showed the kinds of problems they faced. You could see the old military culture of avoiding blame showing up almost immediately, with the initial attempts to blame the loss of the sub on a collision with an American sub. It took nearly a year, and constant pressure from Putin, for the Navy to finally admit that it had been lost due to explosion of the fuel in a torpedo on board (which is the kind of thing that happens in a Navy which doesn't do the maintenance it really needs).
Like every other kind of military equipment that the Soviets built, the Navy has always cut corners to save money. Their surface ships were incredibly formidable looking, with their superstructures bristling with guns and other weapons, but that disguised serious problems, most important of which was that they didn't actually carry much ammunition. One of our destroyers, with much less impressive looking upper decks, would still be firing away several hours after theirs had exhausted their entire magazines. In fact, in nearly every way the real Soviet policy about their military was that it was far more important to
look formidable than to actually
be formidable. It was, in fact, a gigantic bluff.
Their nuclear-powered submarines were legendary, because of the significant death rate among sailors who served on them. ("How can you tell a Soviet submarine sailor? They glow in the dark.") Men were cheap and expendable (a general attitude in Russia predating the Soviet Union, going back to before Peter the Great). So they skimped on shielding on their reactors, among other things. Admiral Rickover once was given a tour of a Soviet nuclear submarine, and happened to be carrying a film dosimeter. It turned out later that he'd been exposed to more radiation during his brief tour of that sub than he had in total in all the years he spent commanding America's nuclear submarine program.
I've spent almost my whole life trying to keep an eye on what the Russians did and did not do, and let me assure you that we in the West have a very clear picture of what potential Russia has today.
At this point, the Russian military is, for all practical purposes, useless in most regards. The Russian descendant of the Strategic Rocket Forces continues and for obvious reasons is still worthy of respect. But most of the conventional force that they're often credited with having is in practice not real, because its equipment is useless for lack of spare parts and vital maintenance that the military no longer can afford, and the men can't be relied on. They have a few units which actually can operate, a few divisions, a few squadrons, a few ships, but their effective conventional military power now is probably much less than that of the UK, as well as being far less versatile.
