Is modern Russia more powerful than the Soviet Union was?

Is modern Russia more powerful than the Soviet Union was?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GmrlqyvselQ
rt.com/usa/339768-us-marines-aircraft-aging/
businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9/#20-canada-1
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whose
grammarist.com/usage/whos-whose/
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whose
breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/
blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/08/09/russia-in-trouble-as-energy-prices-fall/

kek

No

No, it isn't even close.

no

not really

Yes, still 2nd most powerful military on Earth.

no but more cultural or flexible i guess

i can directly buy stuff from each russian seller online. i wouldnt have been able to do it back then

It's worse

They still have the nukes

Nope

No

Hi, but it's more poor. Russian """""achievements"""""

After Chinese?)))))))

>Is modern USA more powerful than was?
The time of dominators is gone for now. Now is time of the survivors and smart countries.

Before Chinese"

There is a major power gap between US-Russia and an even bigger power gap between China-Rus.

Followed by another, much smaller power gap that starts off European nations like UK-France.

To answer that question we need to know an opinion of persons, who lived in both countries. So they could tell us the difference.
I was born in USSR, but when i got my counciousness i alredy lived in RF. My parents lived in USSR, but they didn't me anything about that period of their lives.
Although sometimes my mom told me stories about 90's. But nothing more.
To my mind, it didn't change. Cuz people didn't change. We didn't change at all. Thtere's about 70-75% of Russian population, and it consists of people, that does support an existing government, and they support if that hardly, so they are ready to die for it.
As it was in USSR.
Don't think much changed sicne then.

>There is a major power gap between US-Russia and an even bigger power gap between China-Rus.

No. American military is not the most powerful in the world, you're just the second. China is the #1 and Russia is the third.

>American military is not the most powerful in the world

>time of the survivors and smart countries.

Unfortunately, Russia is neither of these.

China is much stronger than you. Your army is nothing but a paper tiger.

Yes, because the rest of the world is weaker, so they're stronger by default.

Once upon a time we had a united front. A common foe. Now we're back to picking at each other like hyenas.

no

Only in terms of military (which is obvious) and economy/quality of living. But Soviet Union was much more powerful than modern Russia in terms of culture and international influence.

After your fat moms fart

>Your army is nothing but a paper tiger.

offtop: just trying to find a guy to speak with. Hoping to improve pronunciation, and ability to speak fast and fluently. Where could i find such guy?

youtube.com/watch?v=GmrlqyvselQ

>China is much stronger than you. Your army is nothing but a paper tiger.
you could make that argument about the large army of north korea. doesn't mean shit if you can't move them anywhere

пидopaшкa хвaтит нacacывaть cвoим yзкoглaзым coбpaтьям. Oни нe coбиpaютcя вoeвaть c Aмepикoй a вoт чacть пидopaхи вoзмoжнo зaхвaтят кoгдa пyтин пepecтaнeт им дaнь плaтить

>Soviet Union
>Culture

China's army is strong.

But it would be much stronger if its manpower was supplemented by the elite Russian army.

>world is weaker, so they're stronger by default.
>Once upon a time we had a united front. A common foe. Now we're back to pic

The US is able to fight long wars without ever collapsing.

PPЯЯЯ, BPЁTИ, вмecтe c бpaтyшкaми нa Фaшингтoн пoйдём.

Haдeюcь этo бeйт

What's the point of this thread. Do you think u'll reach consensus? No u won't. U'll just shittalk to each other.
Only way to finally understand is a war. Only a war would be ably to show us who's the best one and who's the worst.
Pointless thread.

Этo py-тpeд? A тo cocaч yпaл, кyдa пepeкaтывaтьcя-тo?

Looks just like France and Sweden.

Cьyтa

B кaтaлoгe нe мoжeшь вбить /rus ?
>>'65323844

I like that whoever made this image has given India four functioning carriers. Truth is, only one is operational now (Vikramaditya). Viraat is retired, and Vikrant under construction (ready in a couple years). Not sure about the fourth one in image - exists only on paper.

>/rus
O, тyт тoжe кaтaлoг ecть? Hихyя пpoдвинyтaя мaкaбa. A кaпчa c хyйцaми бывaeт?

Хopoшaя нaживкa

Here

>Этo py-тpeд? A тo cocaч yпaл, кyдa пepeкaтывaтьcя-тo?
I just grabbed the first 'worlds aircraft carriers' image I saw. That image isnt even complete, looks cut off.

Also, half of US aircrafts are out of service. Even then, the US is still undeniably the worlds strongest military.

rt.com/usa/339768-us-marines-aircraft-aging/

Now THAT'S shitposting.

wat?

Sorry i was translating.


My reply was for the Indian though.

...

>USS America
>In case you forgot whose blowing you up

*who's blowing you up

>In case you forgot your English so a currynigger had to intervene

So, is the Kutznetsov going to Syria right now?
50 more aircrafts would be very useful.

I read that it's been postponed to november, because they don't have enough pilots.

I think its 'whose', user.

Just in time for Shillary's election.

blind stupid murrica retard. i will fuck ur mother soon

I'd be happy to explain my reasoning, but you are a very stupid person. No offense, but I've been following your incoherent ramblings, and you are simply a person of low intelligence.

whose implies possession. You can forget whose aircraft carrier it is, for example.

who's is like who is.

"Forget who is blowing you up"
become's
"Forget who's blowing you up"

Ideally it would just be who is, I guess.

Jokes on you, shes black.

Idk, it was because they don't have enough pilots that are able to fly on it.

#Rekt

But we are talking about the aircraft carrier being the possession of the US?

>not liking BBW

Putin just signed new oil trade deal with the Chinese

Proof. Right now fucen niger

the sentence was
>USS America
>In case you forgot whose blowing you up

You are trying to highlight WHO is responsible for blowing up said Brazilian.

If you want to imply possession, it would be more like

>In case you forgot whose warship was blowing you up

Shes not fat.

Too late, you already signed up.

Right now? Didn't read news today.

>World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.
>japan

NOT AIRCRAFT CARRIER, IT DESTROYER WITH BIG DECK, IF YOU RAND ON IT, NOT MY PROBREMU

U a very bad niger, my friend!
Stop to trade ur mother!

I don't know. Maybe. Putin could have launched nukes for all I care.

Didn't check. Just wanted to post dancing Putin .gif for the lulz

You mean the one where chinese get a reasonable ownership cut of oil companies?

Dont act like yo mouth aint waterin for dis bitchz

hahaha

You dumb motherfucker

Ok, nigra, do u smoke weed with ur sluutty mommy every day?

I think you're wrong. We are taught in the US to never do certain things like put ' after who. And to never start a sentence with 'and'.

>Taught
>US

kek

no, not by a long shot

>In case you forgot whose warship was blowing you up
>In case you forgot whose blowing you up
>thinking either of these would use who's

Who would name their best carrier after Gerald fucking Ford then dub their crummy little one that's under half the size "America"

>never start a sentence with 'and'
But why?

I said 'In case you forgot who is blowing you up' would be the best solution

Whose becomes acceptable only if you include the word warship.

Dont start sentence with a conjunction.

Also, its too easy to use 'and' at the beginning of every sentence. So its about livening it up.

>Whose becomes acceptable only if you include the word warship.
If we are talking about a warship already, I dont have to specify that.

>Dont start sentence with a conjunction.

You can start a sentence with some conjunctions but "and" really needs a clause on either side of it.

no, but still second

So, it's not wrong, it's just not appropriate in formal language? Like using "like" too much?

>You can start a sentence with some conjunctions
Of course. I was taught to avoid starting with conjunctions for the purpose of keeping the beginning of sentences interesting and varied.

>Like using "like" too much?
Yea, not wrong at all. It still get the point across. Dont use "I" too much either, when writing.

Only in terms of military, economy and quality of life.Russia is a world power, but the Soviet Union was a super power.

If you were neither, then you would've disappeared from the map after the Mongol conquest.


Opened the gates of space to mankind, revolutionized modern military technology and commie-blocks might not be pretty to look at, but at they're efficient and durable.

No, there is no scenario where whose works the same way as who is. Whose has to be followed by the possessed article.

E.g. Whose car did you steal? Whose PTSD was triggered?

As opposed to

Who is blowing you up?

>GFP

>Who is blowing you up?
So "who's" isn't correct either.

businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9/#20-canada-1

other sources still place it at second

Not sure about who's. The apostrophe normally implies an 'is' after this word. "who is" would be the safest best. "Who's" would be something you'd get away with in speech but perhaps not in text. But what if you had to write a script or a song where the character must say "who is" fast, making it "who's"? Grey Area.

"whose" is used to give more information about what you're subject is.

So the USS America is whose blowing you up.

Completely wrong. Whose is a possessive determiner. It is used to specify the possession of the subject.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whose

grammarist.com/usage/whos-whose/

The debate between who's and whose doesn't even arise in the case of an action, such as blowing up.

Did

>Completely wrong.
>merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whose
>used to give more information about a person or thing that has already been mentioned
If the object has already been mentioned, if you know what is being spoken about; you can use whose.

haha
no

>Who's bombing you
>Whose aircraft carrier is bombing you
These are the only ways to say what you were trying to say, retard.
>Whose warship _was_ blowing you up
>Who(se) _missing verb to be_ blowing you up
>Who's/who was blowing you up
One of these is wrong.

Protip: it's the one you used.

Also, you're a retard who doesn't know the name of the apostrophe and has to write it to indicate he's taking about it.

>merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whose
>used to give more information about a person or thing that has already been mentioned
>These are the only ways to say what you were trying to say, retard.
I guess if you're too stupid to know the prior topic, then you might be right.

Unfortunately for you, retard, the subject of our discussion was known already.

> Simple definition

Nice try.

> Full definition
of or relating to whom or which especially as possessor or possessors , agent or agents , or object or objects of an action


none of the example feature an action. All are to do with possession.

Never forget who is correcting your grammar

Vs

Never forget whose (???) correcting your grammar. Whose what?

> 2016
> An Indian and Tunisian have to explain grammar to an American

>If we are talking about a warship already, I dont have to specify that.
>Completely wrong.
>merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whose
You're wrong. I'm sorry.

You had everything you needed to know about the bombing.

Im not completely wrong or even close to wrong. I'm 100% right.

>Not sure about who's
>*who's blowing you up

There's no 'need to know' basis in English grammar. You have either fulfilled the grammatical criteria to form a basic sentence, or you haven't.

On marking your answer papers in high school, your teacher has everything she needs to know about your intellect on seeing your name. She still marks you for what you have written. Surprise surprise - it does not match the secondary education level of the remainder of the English speaking world.

My retarded little shitposter, you are misunderstanding what you're reading. An example of the case you're sharing is
>Syria filed a complaint to the UN against the United States, whose aircraft carried violated its waters.
We used whose here to give more information about a person or a thing that has already been mentioned, but it wasn't used to surpass the need for a verb to be the way you used it.
You're really fucking stupid, man. Please try to read more or something.

United Kingdom is a second because of five eyes even with London full of Achmed and Jamal's.

>*who's blowing you up
>Not sure about who's
You've already contradicted yourself.

You decided to be a smartass and didnt even know the actual usage of 'whose'. All the proper information was known prior for the use of 'whose'.

>We used whose here to give more information about a person or a thing that has already been mentioned
Thats what i've said over and over. Thats why my usage of 'whose' was correct.

Not sure doesn't imply a contradiction, dumbfuck.
The link I posted clarifies the usage of who's - which works the same as who is. I was uncertain without reason to be - turns out I was right.

>All the proper information was known prior for the use of 'whose'.

Repeating this doesn't unfuck your english. It has been explained to you, repeatedly.

Also, nice BMP bruvski. When are you giving us dat PAK-FA?

I give up
If you means whose carrier is blowing you up, you should've added an is after whose
>whose blowing you up
>whose is blowing you up
or maybe an "are" would've been better since there's two American carriers in the picture
Either way, HOLY FUCK YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED

>All the proper information was known prior for the use of 'whose'.
>Repeating this doesn't unfuck your english.
So you contradict yourself again.

You're wrong.

How could anyone reply to this post and not know the subject being elaborated on?

Sorry you guys are trying to so hard.

>butthurt muslim didnt even read the entire thread

>You're wrong

>Im not completely wrong or even close to wrong. I'm 100% right.

>Im

>You're wrong

>*who's blowing you up
>Not sure about who's
Yea, you look dumb.

Yes, because your aircraft carrier comparison images truly addresses the difference between USSR and Russian militaries right? Which is the actual thread topic, btw.

>because your aircraft carrier comparison images truly addresses the difference between USSR and Russian militaries right?
Ahh, yep. I'd say it does.

Any reasonable person would agree.

Russia is like a child with Downs syndrome who is a son of a powerful guy.

Weapons yes economy no

but soviet union is russian empire's son

Where does Russia gets its weaponry if its economy is such shit?

Who are you buying ingredients from?

The Russian carrier mentioned is the Kuznetsov class. This is in service today, and was in service during the last few years of Soviet rule.

The USSR also had the Kiev class frigates, which featured VTOL aircraft and the capability to be upgraded to aircraft carriers should they have felt the need. But the Soviet Navy never desired a fleet of aircraft carriers like the US, so the comparison is pointless. It says nothing about the state of readiness of the USSR vs that of the present Russian Force.

If anything, the modern Russian armed forces are leaner, better equipped and have closed the gap with the US relatively better than the USSR had in 1991 (when they lacked stealth aircraft and the capability to shoot down stealth aircraft).

Only posting for the sake of the thread topic. If you're the only one left in this thread, there isn't a point to retarding myself to your level to carry on conversing.

>If you're the only one left in this thread, there isn't a point to retarding myself to your level to carry on conversing.
'Who is' going to care?

You already completely embarrassed yourself.

* You've already completely embarrassed yourself

so russian empire is a grandfather of child with Downs syndrome

>Who are you buying ingredients from?
we mined it from russian earth

Look on the world map idiot.

I'm not required to use you've. Please understand English.

breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

I dont believe you.

nevermind i forgot russias full name is ''russian federation''

I live near the city which made weapon uranium so I don't believe you

>near the city which made weapon uranium
You got the uranium from US


;)

as you say buddy

Russia still has the most accurate, most potent and highest volume of nuclear missiles, and is leading in submarine warfare.

Russia’s conventional forces are less impressive than its nuclear forces, though there are conventional areas where the Russians excel, including air defense, submarines and electronic warfare.

Seeing how American society and politics are so corrupt and the constant cuts to it's military, I'd think the Russians with their tact despite their smaller military can win a war. America doesn't even fly astronauts to space anymore (piggy backs on Russian spacecrafts) and uses Russian engines for its most powerful space rockets. It's still trying to build a scramjet cruise missile, while the Russians already have such for several years. M1A1s are more than three decades old, and most countries like Russia and China have more advanced generations developed. The American navy, despite its size, has become vulnerable with the development of new missile technologies by Russia and China. I can go on, but my fingers are getting tired.?

B этoм тpeдe пишyт pyccкиe кoтopыe хoтят тpaхaтьcя? Tpaпы бyдyт?

No

/thread

Its much more dangerous because its much more likable now.

дивaнныe oтpяды нecoмнeннo cтaли мoщнee

>Is modern Russia more powerful than the Soviet Union was?
Nationalism, more debt, crazy billionaire running the show, foreign invasions and military supremacy.

Kinda reminds me of a Trump Residency.

yo, ill trade with you. I'm working on my russian. I'd be down to go like 30 mins english 30 mins russian a few times a week if you're interested.

Russian and Chinese looks absolutly the same.

>Is modern Russia more powerful than the Soviet Union was?

Cheap bait.

All those carriers and they couldn't carry your war against a small asian country cunt

Anyone who does not miss the USSR has no heart
Anyone who wants it back has no brain.

t. Vladimir Putin

Because both are the same class and made by Russia. The Chinese Liaoning aircraft carrier was the Russian Varyag aircraft carrier.

China can't build an aircraft carrier worth a shit.

At least we have toilet paper now

depends

in terms of modernity yes obviously

in terms of global power no obviously

america has the most EXPENSIVE in the world
china has the LARGEST (depends on how you count the military size in which case north korea could be considered larger)
russia (very arguably) has the STRONGEST (they do have the most nuclear power)

it's weaker than ever

not yet it aint,one must ask,what are putins longterm intentions?
to reconstitute coBetcki coyouz,as a superpower, the supply of energy to wherever the US aint,isolating the US from the traditional US European alliances, taking advantage of any situation where the US pisses off those in power,stepping in to offer BIZZNYESS, where ever the US says ]we're outahere'.
a super power that sells lends,gives arms and tech assist of all kinds.

not even comparable.
The mere presence of the Soviet Union was scary.
You have to imagine a USSR dominated block of states, the Warsaw Pact block, and their satellites around the world.
It's like there were no go zones for the USA and imperialists in general.
The world was split in two, with the so called "third world" being a spectator of this mighty challenge between the forces of Good and the United States of America.
So yeah, the USSR was immensely stronger than nowadays Russia and it collapsed because imperalists bought all the nations around it to fight against it.
So sad.

If they fought each other modern Russia would win due to technology, so objectively they are stronger now. However, on a relative basis they are much weaker now and have way less influence since we cucked them.

If you'd truly cucked them, then you wouldn't need the NATO anymore.

Their debts are minimal in comparison to their size.

Lol no
USSR had an ideology that spread to every continent, thats what made them a threat. Russia doesn't stand for anything except perhaps anti-americanism now.

>Anyone who does not miss the USSR has no heart
Yes, anyone who doesn't miss a totalitarian communist oligarchy has no heart at all. At least he was half right.

> In many ways, the last 25 years in Russia have been a period of relative stability. But there is no guarantee that that situation will last. Mr Putin will remember all too well that one of the major reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s was the collapse in energy prices. If anything, Russia is weaker now than it was then. Indeed, as Dominic Lieven says in a brilliant introduction to Barnes’s book: “Russia is now weaker than it has been at almost any time in the last 300 years.”

blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/08/09/russia-in-trouble-as-energy-prices-fall/

I'd love you guys to try a war nowadays and not collapse completely

We are literally in the middle of several wars as we speak.

No you aren't

>le we are in illegal operations in Syria

Not a war, retard

>Not a war

Not an argument

cлышь, гoвнo пиндoccoe. я тя блять yничтoжy нaхyй eщe paз вякнeшь пидopг

To keep power at any cost to Putin and his friends have become billionaires even richer. This contributes to the level of "Goebbels' propaganda. All the media controlled by the Kremlin, the Russian Internet is filled kremlebots. Empire of Lies "Russia Today" creates the illusion of "prosperity" of the regime in the world.

Fuck off Swede like you know anything about culture, tight assed cunt.