The Instigator
m.akermanis
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Rusiian Military is superpower

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,092 times Debate No: 12553
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

m.akermanis

Con

My opinion is that Russian military strenght is very overrated.My argument is that a country that barely is able to pay salaries for their service members can not be considered a military superpower.

Russian annual military budget from all the world military spending has been only 3.9% compared to 46.5% of USA.

If country wants to be a military superpower it has to have military sealift and airlift capabilities (real, not on the paper) - russian military doesn`t have any of these if they wanted to quickly transport enough military cargo and troops to war zone to sustain winning warfighting. USA has been involved in many wars in global arena and it has proved it`s logistical capabilities countless times.

Russian military is aging - it`s a Cold War relict rather than 21st century warfare capable fighting force. Despite annual arms trade shows were Russia keeps introducing new ``high tec`` weapons platforms actually 95% of those are for export and military actually receives only a fraction of it.

Another point is that military forces must be involved in war fighting because it`s the only way to check whether it is capable to complete assigned tasks. Russia has been fighting dead end war in Chechnya with no visible end and results, but it is mainly like COIN war than war with aim to invade country with regular and defense capable army. US military invaded Iraq in 21 days and crushed Taliban using just SF soldiers and Air support in months.
Atheism

Pro

//My opinion is that Russian military strenght is very overrated.My argument is that a country that barely is able to pay salaries for their service members can not be considered a military superpower.//
Sources? Evidence? Anything? Also, Russia has 0-10% of a national GDP debt, while the US has a 50-60%. Let it be known that the US has trillions of dollars of debt.[1][2][3]

//Russian annual military budget from all the world military spending has been only 3.9% compared to 46.5% of USA.//
I'm not sure how to read this, but I think you are saying that the Russian military has spent less on it's military than the US. So, it is a bad thing that Russia is smart by not pushing a large chunk of its nation's money into military finances, thus saving them from trillions of dollars of debt, which the US has? Not sure how this is an argument against Russia.

//Russian military is aging - it`s a Cold War relict rather than 21st century warfare capable fighting force.//
Several spelling mistakes, I'd like to point out. Also, I'd love to see any evidence for this.

//Despite annual arms trade shows were Russia keeps introducing new ``high tec`` weapons platforms actually 95% of those are for export and military actually receives only a fraction of it.//
Please, source these claims. Also, if Russia is introducing all these amazing weapons, wouldn't it occur to them to keep a secret cache for themselves? I'm sure that whatever they sold was small in comparison to their hoarde. Also, they are the ones making the weapons, so they have a steady supply of them.

//Another point is that military forces must be involved in war fighting because it`s the only way to check whether it is capable to complete assigned tasks.//
...So you are telling me war is the only way to test the military fighting strength? Really? Have you ever heard of simulations, and combat training?

//Russia has been fighting dead end war in Chechnya with no visible end and results, but it is mainly like COIN war than war with aim to invade country with regular and defense capable army.
Uh. I'm not sure if this is a coherent sentence or not. But, may I remind you of the five years or so the US have spent in Iran/Iraq doing absolutely nothing, while wasting million, possibly billions of dollars?

//US military invaded Iraq in 21 days and crushed Taliban using just SF soldiers and Air support in months.//
The Taliban was located in Afghanistan. Also, after setting up a democracy, the US proceeded to occupy Afghanistan for no apparent reason. I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with Russia, anyways.

My opponent has used abominable grammar, and his arguments were semi legible. His arguments were incredibly shoddy, and easily refuted. He has not presented a shred of evidence why Russia shouldn't be considered a superpower.

Now, for my contentions:

1)Rusiian.
I was not aware there was a country, or even a city called Rusiia. So, the entire resolution is negated, because there was never a Rusiia to begin with. Resolution negated.

2) Semantical argument.
My opponent failed to actually define his words, so therefore I will. I'm not going to do anything drastic, but since Rusiia isn't a place, I will define it.
Rusiia - synonym for cheese.
So now, my opponent has to prove that the cheese military was ever seriously and politically considered to be a superpower.

3)There was no actual resolution.

If my opponent attempts to say that the title of the debate is not the resolution, then he has failed to post one, and everything else doesn't matter. He gives his opinion, and argues for Russia, but that is irrelevant since there was no resolution to begin with.
Now, I will make a resolution.

Resolution:QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM to the fifth is a intangible floor smacking face of dirt lilting sun.
I am Con, and he is Pro.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]
http://www.usdebtclock.org...[2]
http://www.brillig.com...[3]
I look forward to a great debate from my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
m.akermanis

Con

Ok I`ll try to make my point as clear as possible.

I`ll mention that I`m not a native English speaker, so excuse me for my spelling and grammar errors (anyway I`ll do my best to get rid of them)

About resolution - I`m not clear how to properly describe it but main idea that I had was - Russian military is not a superpower (so I`m against this idea) because Russia is economically weak country, therefore it cannot sustain large army and deploy it globally in reasonable amounts (fighting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan).

So more to the point:

Russian government very often cannot pay wages to their soldiers [1]. These are not exceptions, but reality of modern Russia. Effective army doesn`t consist only from numbers and tonnage. Every soldier has to feel that it is worth being in the military service. Although I didn`t mention that Russia has mainly conscript army and military service last from 2 to 3 years. Very common thing among conscripts are phenomenon called 'Dedovshchina' (humiliation of junior soldiers) [2] [3]. Do I have to tell, that it is impossible to instill courage, comradeship, loyalty for country and other important military values in such a barbaric environment? Also - conscript army will never have such motivation as professional soldiers, because volunteers are motivated by money while conscripts are just waiting for the end of their service term. This lack of motivation can be fatal, because modern warfare today is being fought using high technology weapon systems and giving an AK-47 to soldier (even if there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers) is not enough. Modern warfare (like in Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan), where adaptation is more important than firepower.[4]

Actually I couldn`t figure out what GDP dept has to do with military power? Ok, so be it - USA is a leader in this aspect. BUT - we are not talking about some 50 or 100 years in future (maybe there won`t be any USA then) so one main indicators is - how much money country is spending for it`s armament (it includes R&D of new weapon systems). Russian military spending has fallen dramatically since collapse of USSR [5]. Russian Federation military budget - 1.109 trillion rubles (around 35 billion U.S. dollars) [6].USA - $533.8 billion [7]. Russian inflation rate also has been constantly around 9-14% [8]So - USA is fighting 2 wars simultaneously and it has military presence all over the world. Source for my statement about Russian percentage for world military spending - [9]. If we presume that USA can be called military superpower (because it is the only state that clearly illustrates it with action), couldn`t there be some correlation? If world`s greatest superpower spends almost 10 times as much for it`s military, how come that Russians are so super effective in their attitude towards military expenditures?

Russian military technology is aging [10] [11] - if the trend continues Western military industry will take over Russian part - India, China (not mentioning that they are developing military industry themselves so in not so far future they won`t even consider buying Russian equipment). What does it say about Russian military industrial complex if they pay their workers salary in sugar? It`s pathetic (or speaking in financial terms - not profitable) [12]

And talking about Russians keeping some top-secret underground facility for their weapons cache is plainly childish - we can presume that US government has some ultra ``high tec`` alien UFO`s in Area 51 too. Everything is possible but were are your evidence? My evidence is that Russian sea and air fleet are aging and considering their military spending it doesn`t seem they have much money to spend on new weapons. And one more thing - Russia`s largest weapons manufacturer 'RosoboronExport' (http://www.roe.ru...) is state owned enterprise but doesn`t mean that all profits goes directly back to militarists.

As for combat experience and possible substitutes. There are such thing called 'Wargames' - basically it means simulating wars using given data (troops, ships, airplanes, etc) and calculating the winner [13]. But it is hard to define using numbers such things as - military leadership, troop morale, will to fight - in short - all the psychological factors of warfare. And Russian military lacks many of them -
Military leadership - it is well known that every army when starting the war replays the last one - it is inevitably, because every next war is different - it is one thing to fight in Europe near your country, but fighting 10k miles across ocean in hostile and unfamiliar environment is a lot harder if you haven`t invested resources in preparation for every possible encounter. How can country prepare for possible future wars across globe if it is sitting ducks in it`s barracks. If that was the case every military would use PCs to calculate their odds in different combat situations from comfort of their home. Russia has very little military presence abroad (and even it is mainly symbolic). Besides even if computer calculations are correct it is just simulation assuming that in real life army is capable of completing tasks necessary to achieve victory - logistics is working perfect, every unit knows it`s place and objectives, there are sufficient funds to pay for combat actions. There are numerous evidences that Russian military is barely capable of fighting war that is near it`s borders - Georgian war in 2008 - it showed that Russians are using not so sophisticated equipment (still hiding? :D ) - mainly Cold war surplus and some pretty new but with flaws. There are even evidence that some time military radio communications were so bad that soldiers were forced to using mobile phones to communicate between units. [14] [15] And is is only honest to say that Georgian military was ill-prepared and weak to resist Russian attack and their main strategy was to retreat to Georgian mainland.

A little bit OFF TOPIC - If we compare these wars - in Georgia and Chechnya with stunning US military achievements in early phases of Iraq and Afghanistan it`s clearly visible how incapable Russian military is. You had an argument that USA is waging useless wars. Sorry, but military did it`s job long ago - now military is stuck with doing political tasks because of Washington`s dead end diplomacy and objective reality of Middle East. Military Vs. Military phases of both wars resulted in perfect victory. After smoke cleared there was power vacuum - it is as to say that local police department is guilty for increase of criminal elements in city. Police (read - US military) can do only as much as it can - trying to catch (read - kill) as many criminals (read - Taliban, etc.) as it can, but what can they do if there are more of them waiting around corner (read - neighboring countries - Iran, Pakistan, etc.)? We are talking about enemy crushing capabilities not about usefulness of these wars.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[6] http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.indexmundi.com...
[9] http://www.globalissues.org...
[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[11] http://www.frost.com...
[12] http://rt.com...
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[14] http://www.boston.com...
[15] http://www.reuters.com...
Atheism

Pro

//About resolution - I`m not clear how to properly describe it but main idea that I had was - Russian military is not a superpower (so I`m against this idea) because Russia is economically weak country, therefore it cannot sustain large army and deploy it globally in reasonable amounts (fighting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan).//
So, basically, the new resolution is that Russia is not a superpower, and then you name yourself con.
Now, the new resolution is, Russia is a super power, I am con, now, and you proceed to list arguments against your own new position, pro.
I gave you two chances to properly define the resolution, and you gave me one, which was,
"The Russian military is not a super power,"
which you proceeded to name yourself Con.
And you still have the B.o.P.
So, you defeat your own resolution by arguing against yourself. Brilliant.
I win by default because my opponent has gone against his own side. Awesome. I don't even have to do anything.
New Resolution Affirmed by my opponent arguing against himself. Awesome. I do believe I will take his argument for my own, except imagine it better written and without spelling mistakes.
Debate Round No. 2
m.akermanis

Con

I don`t actually understand my opponent`s problem - is he some kind of 'fckn' obsessed English teacher? I explained to him the origins of my spelling errors - He shouldn`t argue that my my point of view and arguments are not understandable.

About resolution and his 'default winning' - voters will decide who wins the argument and if they give the winning trophy to my opponent - so be it. But so far I haven`t seen any logical arguments from my opponent, except finding faults in my resolution (yeah, I know it`s unpunctual, but my point of view is clearly visible from my given arguments) and spelling.

This could be acceptable if we were debating in tournament, but for this debate I would like to see argumentative clash of opinions
Atheism

Pro

Everything my opponent has posted in R3 is useless. If he is not a native English speaker, he should at least be coherent enough to realize the difference between Pro and Con.
Suffice to say, I don't win this because I played semantics, but simply because my opponent defined the resolution wrong.
If he wishes to try again, and this time properly do it, then so be it. But, on a debate website, of all things, he can't write a faulty resolution, and then, when his opponent gives him another chance, writes a resolution that he argues against.
It does not matter if you aren't a native English speaker, a lot of people on this website aren't, but they at least are coherent enough to make a resolution and follow through with it.
I repeat, this is a debate website, which means you looked for a place for professional debate. This is what you found, and now you expect to be able to make two faulty resolutions with penalities? Ridiculous.
Pro -of the original resolution- wins.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thatguy15 6 years ago
thatguy15
m.akermanisAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
m.akermanisAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34