Was just watching Jack Ryan Season 3 and seeing the display of force and their movements causes some interesting dissonance given what we know now.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Yes it was. The USSR has very little in common with kleptocracy Russia. My wife was raised under their educational system and she was studying organic chemistry in the eight grade. Today she is one of the top people in her field (easily top ten) and she says that most of her career she’s mostly leaned on her early education. Especially math and science.

    • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is wild to see this. It’s amazing how quickly things change.

      Yeah, Russia was incredibly powerful in its heyday, both in global influence and military power. Think about how people are worried about climate change now, then double it. That was the threat of nuclear war that kept people awake at night for decades.

      After the time of the collapse we found out how empty a lot of their power was. How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled. They had power but they never figured out how to make it sustainable.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled.

        Love the analogy. I’m aware they were and still are a threat from a nuclear perspective. I was just more curious about their ability to successfully mount a tactical battle strategy, logistics to supply said strategy, etc.

        • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          To a degree that was shown in the hot parts of the Cold War like the Vietnam War or the Congo Crisis where they provided logistical support. Like the US, or more accurately as a counter to them, they fiddled with countries for years to get outcomes that benefited the USSR ideology.

          You could argue that it’s easier to shake up someone else than lead a full invasion force, but the US has learned that lesson too and followed that same play book. Invasion is harder than giving someone the tools to destroy themselves.

        • paper_clip@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          IIRC, the Soviets placed their primary artillery school and tank factories in Ukraine. As a percentage of the USSR’s military base, the Ukrainians were well above average.

    • eestileib
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In its heyday under Peter / Catherine the Great, depending on who you ask, Russia was a true world superpower. Richest royals, biggest population, massive food supply.

      In the 50s and 60s, if the nuclear deterrent hadn’t existed they could have taken over most of Europe through a combination of capture of democracy and invasion.

      Even after than, Russian hard-science education was extremely good (biology they got screwed by ideology).