Way too much "defeatist" talk which is precisely the reason why Russia is in deep trouble as it is, facing brutal Imperial Alliance, with only Belarus as it's "shield".
I can't bother to reply to all of what you said, but calling Soviet allies and USSR itself as "bankrupt" is strange - using that as a excuse to bend over and being destroyed.
Do remind us of the countries that didn't bend over between 1989 - 1991 (China, Cuba, North Korea, Lao People's Republic, Vietnam). How was their economic situation between 1989 - 1991? Since according to you, the so-called "bankrupt USSR" had to bend over for a massive Zombie Demo-Crazy entry which has given Russia massive problems over the past 34 years.
A lot of members here read way too much Western media and worse still, buy into that worldview.
Russia is besieged economically by much of the developed world, but strategicaly the position of the RF has actually improved relative to 1991. The legacy of the Sino-Soviet split is effectively gone. Russia's Eastern Flank is secure and China has become the most powerful, or 2nd most powerful player in the world, and this power is now closely aligned with Russia, with alignment and friendship strengthening every year.
In 1991, RF was in no position to project power or entertain any adventures in Africa or Middle East. Yet this is something RF is in position to do today. Yes, Syria was a loss, but it's not a complete write off, and there will be opportunities to come back.
The areas where Russian influence and projection has decreased the most is Eastern Europe, an area where NATO and US have had tremendous success, constantly coming closer to Russian borders, and this is directly why there was War in Ukraine and Georgia. By the look of things... Russia will most likely be victorious in those areas.
2) There is a bigger chance that NATO will take St.Petersburg via Finland, or Murmansk via Norway and Finland) than Russia being able to take Tallinn, Vilnius and Riga in case NATO goes for a small Kaliningrad snack. Russia is still not able to take Sumy after (soon) 42 months, which is right there across the border.
It doesn't matter if Transnistria isn't part of Russia (Again, defeatist talk). What matters is that by saying that, you're allowing NATO to precisely prepare for a snack, and on the meny they'll have not only Transnistria, but also South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Regarding S-400 and Turkey. They already have their own drones (which successfully whooped pro-Russian forces in Syria, Libya and Nagorno-K), and they have the project KAAN. Turkey could at any moment get rid of S-400 and be included back in the F-35 program, so I cannot see what Russia gained from this. There was a suggestion that Turkey could give these to the extremist Hindutva regime.
Either way, you fail to acknowledge that Russia screwed up with trusting a NATO member France regarding Mistrals and selling S-400 to another NATO member, Turkey.
There is absolutely no apetite in Europe for war. They talk a tough game, but Europeans and their governments are not particularly mobilized to wage war with Russia. Europeans aren't willing to die over Ukraine, and I find it unlikely that they will want to die over Moldova. Certainly, they will try to turn it into another proxy war, but open war? Perhaps, but it is a low percentage possibility.
You seem to rate Turkish drones highly. Tell me, where are they? They featured prominently in war footage early on in the war, but have disappeared since. Why aren't they "whooping Russian forces" in the most prominent conflict that Russia is involved in? What makes you think that these drones are going to have any success overseas against a serious Russian effort?
3) Libya did order a nice package of weapons from Russia in January 2010. Libya was supposed to get at least 20 fighters (Su-30, I believe), several S-300PMU2 and MBTs such as T-72 and T-90.
Libya was, as we know, decimated 14 months later (March 2011), and Russia didn't deliver anything (AFAIK) as NATO decided to decimate the whole country into pieces and it took only a few months to do so.
Regarding Gorba and Yeltsin, the fact is: Russians failed to defend the structure of the USSR that 27 million Soviet citizens gave their life for during WW2.
In my previous reply, I forgot to mention the idiot who basically attempted to coup Putin just 2 years ago - you know, the Wagner Egg Head, and the fact that he even dared to do this just 2 years ago, tells me more than enough that Russia and Putin do NOT have sufficient control of whatever the fvck is going on. The Wagner Egg Head even dared to fire upon other Russian forces INSIDE Russia along with his pro-Wagner troops - and he killed several Russian personnel along with destroying Russian equipment, before he was stopped in his tracks.
Therefore, Russia and Putin "planning something" up until 2050 (For example Navy strategy) is simply a joke, as one cannot trust what will happen in Russia, especially when Putin dies.
You can call it a joke if you want, but Russian defense procurement actually had a better track record than their NATO counterparts in many instances. The Russians for example, did produce a 5th gen aircraft, whereas Europe's only exists on paper. Yeah, Russian programs and announcments are frequently cancelled or arrive late,
how is this any different from any other country?
Where is the replacement for Abrams tank or the Bradley IFV? How many failed programs and ambitious announcements were made by the US DoD?
How close is the Sig Spear to replacing the M4 as a standard service firearm?
Remember Tempest? Announced in 2015 as a 5th gen fighter program? Or Mitsubishi F-X, both of which have been repackaged into FCAS? If Russia had done something similar people would laugh.
What about the LRASM replacement, which was supposed to be an interim missile?
The reality is, whenever NATO military procurement gets cancelled, delayed, etc, it's all met with very respectful nods and "understanding". By comparison, similar Russian actions are ridiculed and mocked, including by people on this Forum.
This isn't because there is some meaningful difference between the two, it's simply a legacy of the Cold War, the social media environment, and propaganda. Which is fine, but stop incorporating it into your worldview, it's not objective.
