A bit ironic when one realised the Soviet divisions never get a chance to clash with NATO units but instead their succesor formations go toe to toe with one another in Ukraine as we speak..
@@neilas1630 those are old ethnic conflicts not like the geopolitics in Ukraine. The clashes on the kyrgiz-tajik boarder are not even from their governments but initiated by local soldiers on the boarder .. kyrgiz attacking Tajiks as the Tajiks try to settle land that they don't own.. but the older issue is the kyrgiz are nomads and robbed and enslaved the Tajiks for 1000snds of years so the Tajiks see it more as just settling land they always used.. it's like the uzbek-kazakh thing or the uyghur-kazakh or uyghur-kyrgiz thing...the Kazakh and kyrgiz have always raided and harassed the Oasis dwelling Uyghurs and Uzbeks but these traders from their fortified oasisis have always out bartered and befuddled the nomads in trade snaring them in debt for goods they need.. there is a deep age old conflict between these groups .. in the areas occupied now by china that the Uyghur live there is always clashes between the more aggressive nomads and the Uyghurs, if there is an unhappy trade the kazakhs will attack or if an Uyghur man marries a Kazakh woman there can be violence from the kazakhs, it's precisely why the kazakhs are not sympathetic to the poor Uyghurs who are being colonised by china .. in Kazakhstan the Uyghur population just like the Uzbeks frequently will come under mob attack due to trading practices or over Kazakh women or even school playground disputes. The nomads, Kazakh, karakalpak, nogai, kalmyk,kyrgiz, tuvans, Mongols ECT seem to have this nature in them, good or bad they see these settled central Asian trading people as an opponent, an ancient opponent who they have always clashes with and in return those settled central Asians, Tajik, Uyghur, Uzbek, sarts, ECT see them as a threatening volatile and aggressive ethnicity who can never quite be trusted and who has "uncivil" roots, who is rude, crude and aggressive underneath no matter how they appear in the modern world. It's some ancient cultural clash that the modern world doesn't quite understand and doesn't fit with modern nations boarders or systems. The Armenian aziri thing is basically an extension extermination of Armenians by the ottomans that the aziris have picked up as their parent nation Iran never shared this hatred of Armenians.. the conflict dates to the late 19 century when aziris became less tied to Persia and more to the ottomans culturally while also being a Russian colony and having much power being always the favourite group of the two by both the Russian Empire and the USSR.. poor old Armenia copped it . (There was many generals in the Russian military that were aziris from the 19th century to WW2) this good relationship with the state allowed those boarders to appear, that artsakh/nagorno kharabakh situation is a result of this as it was originally the fiefdom of a powerful aziri bey who sided with the Russians against Persia and who's family went on to be general in many of Russia's wars in central Asia, the Caucasus and Europe . That area was 80-90% Armenian but settlers arrived during Soviet times to try to adjust the balance
This is insane coming across this video. I went to this base a year or two before the invasion for work. Can’t believe I’m seeing it how it was long before. From what I’ve heard sadly that base is now destroyed.
@@joeclark1893the averge soviet divison was just as well if not much better equiped then the averge nato one they ussaly had better acess to afv and AA units were much more common as was the concenntration of atgms
Another brilliant video! Your videos like these are providing great information for the introduction part of my college dissertation on the First Chechen war!
Thanks. As a graduate student myself, the whole purpose of this channel was to centralize lots of footage scattered around the internet in one place to help folks like us in particular gain an additional (visual) layer of understanding on the military competition of the late Cold War period and the armed forces of Russia and the former USSR.
I knew a man from this devision, from magadan, russian far east , he ended up joining the ukrainian military as the option was better than potentially going back to an uncertain future in the collapsing ussr. .
How was joining Ukrainian army better than joining Russian army?? After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia became the most developed country out of all former Soviet republics. The economy was stronger, more jobs, lower prices and higher wages than in Ukraine. That's why many Ukrainians migrated to Russia for good or just to work. Your friend made a mistake, obviously.
@@myvictory8294 in 1991 everything was uncertain, yes it was a mistake in a way.. but the USSR still exhausted in form and Ukraine was becoming independent, he was able to obtain a better position, higher rank, better pay and his owner accommodation. Yes in a year or so he was to regret it as Ukraine spiralled into a total economic collapse worse that the Russian or Kazakh SSRs causing them to sack many troops and half or withhold pay but how would you know exactly?. When a new country forms generally there is opportunity he felt either keep living in a freezing filthy tent for 6 months without pay or have a chance to get something better. Remember back then Ukraine was heavily industrialized by the Soviet union so he figured it had all this military industry, ship building, aviation ,nuclear, automotive ECT industry and a relatively large concentrated population and that it should better stand a chance at becoming a capitalist state.. he was wrong but the point is his logic wasn't bad at the time given what people knew. And yet Ukraine's GDP is 4 times less than Kazakhstan 😑....and it never recovered from the early 90 chaos...unlike Russia or Kazakhstan did
Why should the Soviet Union never have broken up in the first place, hence the problems we have today, and there would be no American hegemony as a result.
The Soviet Union broke up because its constituent members were not made members by free choice, and when the Union became weak and brittle (ultimately because the communist system in the Soviet Union was no longer functional or fit for purpose), those involuntary members looked west and made their choice. American hegemony today is simply emblematic of the strength and desirability of the world order they lead.
@kaamos79 bullshit and bollocks, it broke up, simply because of the inafforadability of communism after the Afghanistan War in particular, and trying to pay for everything in Eastern Europe, free choice my ass, that's a bunch of fucking lies, if that were the case, why didn't it break up in the 1950s? 1960s? or the 1970s? It simply didn't, because up until then, the Soviets were not over extending themselves in wars and proving up other countries around conflict areas throughout, therefore, there was more money to spend on the other 14 republics besides Russia, remember, all 15 republics had equal rights within the union, as woukd be the mantra of communism anyway. After the break up of the USSR, the Americans and the West plamaust the void left by setting a strategy of eastward expansion, that's well known. Remember, James Baker said in February 1990 to Eduard Swevardnaze, his Soviet counterpart; " Not another inch eastward". He lied, the Americans lied, the west lied, and broke that worded agreement. But you know something, American hegemony is now fading and ending badly, like Nato and the West, Africa and the Middle East are prime examples, they are sick and tired of western lies, bullying and extortion of their resources. That's a statement of fact. I'm from Ireland and I can see this. Get used to it, the sun is rising in the East, Russia and China, and it's setting in the west, America and Nato. All empires end you see.
@@bluedragontoybash2463American hegemony isn’t declining or weak or whatever. It’s stilly by far, totally without equal military and economically. No nation is more influential and powerful than the US. It’s that simple and it isn’t going away anytime soon regardless of what jealous types like you claim
@@kaamos79 The Soviet Union breaking up had nothing to do with its members being there by "free choice" or not, which, by the way, the vast majority were, considering the amount of Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army and who for decades after were happily a part of the USSR, and saw living standards increase to a level which were unthinkable half a century prior. The Baltic states are the only ones who looked west immediately after their secession. From 1991 till 2014, Ukraine maintained a far closer relationship with Russia than with any western state, and this did not change in a popular sense until 2017 in the paradigm shift after Maidan. In the East, many still felt closer to Russia, and many worked or had family there too. The USSR collapsed because it was made weak and brittle by a mix of intentional internal changes and years of stagnation. Weak commercial development contributed greatly to a lack of confidence in the system, compounded by sanctions and trade restrictions, while it was intentionally undermined by a political elite who was seeking a reform of the system into a more western style. The failure in Afghanistan also further compounded the problems in confidence of the system. While Russia slowly recovered from the 90s and early 2000s, Ukraine continued on the trajectory of detrimental corruption and destruction of vital industries. Ukraine in 1991 had the chance to be one of the wealthiest nations in Eastern Europe, but instead it got into an endless cycle of corruption scandals and stagnation. Nothing changed, it was just the same story every year after, candidates promising change, but doing nothing. In this way, Ukraine remained more like the late USSR than Russia. American hegemony has everything to do with strength and nothing to do with desirability. Europe is in a geopolitical stranglehold, and is purposefully kept weak by America, because America knows that if Europe is free to choose, it would have chosen a normalisation with Russia long ago, and Russia would've been happy with it. But American hegemony is based on fearmongering and propaganda; Russia is made the "other" and the enemy, and while American intelligence services work to undermine Russian influence in the Caucasus and Ukraine, they point the finger at 'evil Russia' when Russia acts to preserve those interests. It is manufactured consent, and it is why Europe has no future, not economically and not militarily; they have far too long been sucking on America's teat. America will keep them that way, because the only way NATO has a purpose, is if Russia is provoked constantly into lashing out.
I think USSR had best people and very shitty government in that era, you will see these men are nothing but honest familiy folks who will selflessly serve their homeland and their families, no matter if they were Ukrainan, Kazaks, Russian, Belorus or what else. USSR had best military on the earth and very very shity currupt govrnment in that period. US army could not stand a chance to USSR army in 80s and 90 during disolution.
Yes but they absorbit spending is what bankrupted them they made 23-27x the amount of tanks as the us in the 70s its crazy they lasted as long as they did. 15% of gdp 50% of budget the us today soends 1.9-3% gdp 16% budget I whould agree the warsaw pact was militaryly much stronger then nato ecspicaly if they fully molbized but the cold war was a economic conflict not a military one
yea as a member both of the soviet and the russian army ,you would know. is it so hard not to spew out any stupid garbage that crosses your little mind?
@@micuna5743 googoo gaga, I got your copium. There are countless reports on the lack luster maintenance of the russian equipment. I am pretty sure most of the equipment would have seen better usage than today.
Какая убогая форма была у тогдашних военных. Как-будто солдафоны с полей Первой Мировой случайно забрели в конец 20-го века. Даже войска союзников в конце Второй Мировой выглядели куда современней с их берцами, куртками и штанами с удобными карманами.
@@mikescshdj дело вкуса. Достаточно посмотреть, к чему все в итоге пришли и у кого оно впервые появилось тогда. Офицерская или парадная форма конечно имела вид, но на солдат без слез было не глянуть, по крайней мере пока не придумали более-менее современную "афганку", но это уже был самый конец той эпохи.
crazy how most of these vehicles and weapons were probably used in the current war
Ukraine-Russia both have a large stockpile of their equipment from the 1970s-1980s.
Everything has been updated years ago
@@myvictory8294 still likely alot of the same chassis
Yes but imagine these military equipment just tow the so called hightech tanks of america like bradley and british tanks.😅😅 can you imagine that?
@@AdelongloPrado what are you even saying?
A bit ironic when one realised the Soviet divisions never get a chance to clash with NATO units but instead their succesor formations go toe to toe with one another in Ukraine as we speak..
yea plus Armenia and Azerbaijan
and tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
@@neilas1630 those are old ethnic conflicts not like the geopolitics in Ukraine.
The clashes on the kyrgiz-tajik boarder are not even from their governments but initiated by local soldiers on the boarder .. kyrgiz attacking Tajiks as the Tajiks try to settle land that they don't own.. but the older issue is the kyrgiz are nomads and robbed and enslaved the Tajiks for 1000snds of years so the Tajiks see it more as just settling land they always used.. it's like the uzbek-kazakh thing or the uyghur-kazakh or uyghur-kyrgiz thing...the Kazakh and kyrgiz have always raided and harassed the Oasis dwelling Uyghurs and Uzbeks but these traders from their fortified oasisis have always out bartered and befuddled the nomads in trade snaring them in debt for goods they need.. there is a deep age old conflict between these groups .. in the areas occupied now by china that the Uyghur live there is always clashes between the more aggressive nomads and the Uyghurs, if there is an unhappy trade the kazakhs will attack or if an Uyghur man marries a Kazakh woman there can be violence from the kazakhs, it's precisely why the kazakhs are not sympathetic to the poor Uyghurs who are being colonised by china .. in Kazakhstan the Uyghur population just like the Uzbeks frequently will come under mob attack due to trading practices or over Kazakh women or even school playground disputes.
The nomads, Kazakh, karakalpak, nogai, kalmyk,kyrgiz, tuvans, Mongols ECT seem to have this nature in them, good or bad they see these settled central Asian trading people as an opponent, an ancient opponent who they have always clashes with and in return those settled central Asians, Tajik, Uyghur, Uzbek, sarts, ECT see them as a threatening volatile and aggressive ethnicity who can never quite be trusted and who has "uncivil" roots, who is rude, crude and aggressive underneath no matter how they appear in the modern world.
It's some ancient cultural clash that the modern world doesn't quite understand and doesn't fit with modern nations boarders or systems.
The Armenian aziri thing is basically an extension extermination of Armenians by the ottomans that the aziris have picked up as their parent nation Iran never shared this hatred of Armenians.. the conflict dates to the late 19 century when aziris became less tied to Persia and more to the ottomans culturally while also being a Russian colony and having much power being always the favourite group of the two by both the Russian Empire and the USSR.. poor old Armenia copped it . (There was many generals in the Russian military that were aziris from the 19th century to WW2) this good relationship with the state allowed those boarders to appear, that artsakh/nagorno kharabakh situation is a result of this as it was originally the fiefdom of a powerful aziri bey who sided with the Russians against Persia and who's family went on to be general in many of Russia's wars in central Asia, the Caucasus and Europe . That area was 80-90% Armenian but settlers arrived during Soviet times to try to adjust the balance
Well, that aged well. 😃
So this is the origin of the mighty 92nd Mech Brigade
This is insane coming across this video. I went to this base a year or two before the invasion for work. Can’t believe I’m seeing it how it was long before. From what I’ve heard sadly that base is now destroyed.
It’s insane to think that in a few decades, this poorly equipped Soviet division would become a modern NATO-grade army
@@joeclark1893 modern NATO-grade army??
@@honoraresapientia7835This same brigade and division in its different iterations became part of the current Ukrainian Army for context.
@@joeclark1893the averge soviet divison was just as well if not much better equiped then the averge nato one they ussaly had better acess to afv and AA units were much more common as was the concenntration of atgms
Another brilliant video! Your videos like these are providing great information for the introduction part of my college dissertation on the First Chechen war!
Thanks. As a graduate student myself, the whole purpose of this channel was to centralize lots of footage scattered around the internet in one place to help folks like us in particular gain an additional (visual) layer of understanding on the military competition of the late Cold War period and the armed forces of Russia and the former USSR.
Predecessor of the 92nd Mechanized Brigade
I knew a man from this devision, from magadan, russian far east , he ended up joining the ukrainian military as the option was better than potentially going back to an uncertain future in the collapsing ussr. .
How was joining Ukrainian army better than joining Russian army?? After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia became the most developed country out of all former Soviet republics. The economy was stronger, more jobs, lower prices and higher wages than in Ukraine. That's why many Ukrainians migrated to Russia for good or just to work. Your friend made a mistake, obviously.
@@myvictory8294 in 1991 everything was uncertain, yes it was a mistake in a way.. but the USSR still exhausted in form and Ukraine was becoming independent, he was able to obtain a better position, higher rank, better pay and his owner accommodation. Yes in a year or so he was to regret it as Ukraine spiralled into a total economic collapse worse that the Russian or Kazakh SSRs causing them to sack many troops and half or withhold pay but how would you know exactly?.
When a new country forms generally there is opportunity he felt either keep living in a freezing filthy tent for 6 months without pay or have a chance to get something better. Remember back then Ukraine was heavily industrialized by the Soviet union so he figured it had all this military industry, ship building, aviation ,nuclear, automotive ECT industry and a relatively large concentrated population and that it should better stand a chance at becoming a capitalist state.. he was wrong but the point is his logic wasn't bad at the time given what people knew.
And yet Ukraine's GDP is 4 times less than Kazakhstan 😑....and it never recovered from the early 90 chaos...unlike Russia or Kazakhstan did
The Red Army stopped being called that in 1946.
I thought it was 1956 when they changed the ranking.
Why should the Soviet Union never have broken up in the first place, hence the problems we have today, and there would be no American hegemony as a result.
The Soviet Union broke up because its constituent members were not made members by free choice, and when the Union became weak and brittle (ultimately because the communist system in the Soviet Union was no longer functional or fit for purpose), those involuntary members looked west and made their choice. American hegemony today is simply emblematic of the strength and desirability of the world order they lead.
@kaamos79 bullshit and bollocks, it broke up, simply because of the inafforadability of communism after the Afghanistan War in particular, and trying to pay for everything in Eastern Europe, free choice my ass, that's a bunch of fucking lies, if that were the case, why didn't it break up in the 1950s? 1960s? or the 1970s? It simply didn't, because up until then, the Soviets were not over extending themselves in wars and proving up other countries around conflict areas throughout, therefore, there was more money to spend on the other 14 republics besides Russia, remember, all 15 republics had equal rights within the union, as woukd be the mantra of communism anyway.
After the break up of the USSR, the Americans and the West plamaust the void left by setting a strategy of eastward expansion, that's well known.
Remember, James Baker said in February 1990 to Eduard Swevardnaze, his Soviet counterpart; " Not another inch eastward".
He lied, the Americans lied, the west lied, and broke that worded agreement.
But you know something, American hegemony is now fading and ending badly, like Nato and the West, Africa and the Middle East are prime examples, they are sick and tired of western lies, bullying and extortion of their resources.
That's a statement of fact. I'm from Ireland and I can see this.
Get used to it, the sun is rising in the East, Russia and China, and it's setting in the west, America and Nato. All empires end you see.
The American hegemony would not be decaying and corrupt like now if the USSR still standing as enemy
@@bluedragontoybash2463American hegemony isn’t declining or weak or whatever. It’s stilly by far, totally without equal military and economically. No nation is more influential and powerful than the US. It’s that simple and it isn’t going away anytime soon regardless of what jealous types like you claim
@@kaamos79 The Soviet Union breaking up had nothing to do with its members being there by "free choice" or not, which, by the way, the vast majority were, considering the amount of Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army and who for decades after were happily a part of the USSR, and saw living standards increase to a level which were unthinkable half a century prior. The Baltic states are the only ones who looked west immediately after their secession. From 1991 till 2014, Ukraine maintained a far closer relationship with Russia than with any western state, and this did not change in a popular sense until 2017 in the paradigm shift after Maidan. In the East, many still felt closer to Russia, and many worked or had family there too.
The USSR collapsed because it was made weak and brittle by a mix of intentional internal changes and years of stagnation. Weak commercial development contributed greatly to a lack of confidence in the system, compounded by sanctions and trade restrictions, while it was intentionally undermined by a political elite who was seeking a reform of the system into a more western style. The failure in Afghanistan also further compounded the problems in confidence of the system.
While Russia slowly recovered from the 90s and early 2000s, Ukraine continued on the trajectory of detrimental corruption and destruction of vital industries. Ukraine in 1991 had the chance to be one of the wealthiest nations in Eastern Europe, but instead it got into an endless cycle of corruption scandals and stagnation. Nothing changed, it was just the same story every year after, candidates promising change, but doing nothing. In this way, Ukraine remained more like the late USSR than Russia.
American hegemony has everything to do with strength and nothing to do with desirability. Europe is in a geopolitical stranglehold, and is purposefully kept weak by America, because America knows that if Europe is free to choose, it would have chosen a normalisation with Russia long ago, and Russia would've been happy with it. But American hegemony is based on fearmongering and propaganda; Russia is made the "other" and the enemy, and while American intelligence services work to undermine Russian influence in the Caucasus and Ukraine, they point the finger at 'evil Russia' when Russia acts to preserve those interests. It is manufactured consent, and it is why Europe has no future, not economically and not militarily; they have far too long been sucking on America's teat. America will keep them that way, because the only way NATO has a purpose, is if Russia is provoked constantly into lashing out.
Сбылась мечта Капитализма, рухнула Красная Угроза.
-_-
the dream of the oligarchs, correct.
Funny for a British journalist to be commenting on another Country's issues when the UK itself was a total clusterfuck in that time period.
I think USSR had best people and very shitty government in that era, you will see these men are nothing but honest familiy folks who will selflessly serve their homeland and their families, no matter if they were Ukrainan, Kazaks, Russian, Belorus or what else. USSR had best military on the earth and very very shity currupt govrnment in that period. US army could not stand a chance to USSR army in 80s and 90 during disolution.
Yes but they absorbit spending is what bankrupted them they made 23-27x the amount of tanks as the us in the 70s its crazy they lasted as long as they did. 15% of gdp 50% of budget the us today soends 1.9-3% gdp 16% budget
I whould agree the warsaw pact was militaryly much stronger then nato ecspicaly if they fully molbized but the cold war was a economic conflict not a military one
A bit ironic when the Ukrainian Soviet division maintained their equipment better than Russia today.
Lies
yea as a member both of the soviet and the russian army ,you would know.
is it so hard not to spew out any stupid garbage that crosses your little mind?
@@micuna5743 googoo gaga, I got your copium. There are countless reports on the lack luster maintenance of the russian equipment. I am pretty sure most of the equipment would have seen better usage than today.
Neither side looked after then Ukraine just has western aid
See the trolls flooding en masse to attack you
48 ROPSHİNSKAYA MOTOSTRELKOVAYA DİVİZİYA,İMENİ KALİNİNA
А одеты как в 41 году 🤦
Какая убогая форма была у тогдашних военных. Как-будто солдафоны с полей Первой Мировой случайно забрели в конец 20-го века. Даже войска союзников в конце Второй Мировой выглядели куда современней с их берцами, куртками и штанами с удобными карманами.
Зато выглядело довольно уродски. У Союза хоть опрятно, красиво, подтянуто выглядели. Со стилем.
@@mikescshdj дело вкуса. Достаточно посмотреть, к чему все в итоге пришли и у кого оно впервые появилось тогда. Офицерская или парадная форма конечно имела вид, но на солдат без слез было не глянуть, по крайней мере пока не придумали более-менее современную "афганку", но это уже был самый конец той эпохи.
В чем не разбираешься не комментируй чтоб дураком не считали
@@majestikagler3027 видимо именно такие дуболомы как ты проектировали униформу для советской армии, если тебя это так задевает.
If your country is a member of USSR you need to learn to speak Russian...
Good thing there is no more USSR
@@andarara-c1p they are same with other Empire nations
@@Crystal_G_1989 And guess what, they prefer to be under those "empires" you say
@@andarara-c1poverthinking moment
@@Peopleunder ???
Can you say something that makes sense?