Is the Russian Federation on the verge of Collapse ?

schooldad3, actually we're just the opposite. Not sure why the accusation?

I haven't agreed with the common theory for 2+ years.

www.unsealed.org/2019/12/gogs-role-in-gods-story-earthly-stooge.html

www.unsealed.org/2020/02/gog-and-magog-war-to-end-all-wars.html

Although, even now I wouldn't suggest some lesser shadow fulfillment might not occur during the Trib, but the main fulfillment is placed by John post-millennium (Rev. 20).

And what if the Russian Federation boldly attacks the US/EU first with a very strong first strike offensive and Babylon burns down within 1 hour?  

If I were Putin and faced extermination from the west, I would strike first and strike with all my might all at once.

What Putin is doing right now is a desperate move.

His military has been kept weak for decades on purpose. The security state (ex-KGB, current FSB) rules the country and the military is its greatest threat. Therefore it stays underpaid, underequipped, under-maintained, and barely trained. The Mafia is used to keep the army weak, and any charismatic, capable commander is removed one way or another.

Putin is trying to kill two birds with one stone. The above practice has left his army incapable of performing the mission he set for it, and they've suffered more casualties in 7 months than the US did in 10 years of Vietnam. So he's keeping his main threat to power (the military) weak by trying to fill depleted units with conscripts from mass mobilization without any training or proper gear. The sooner they get to the front the less time they have to contemplate or organize an uprising against him. At the same time, he's desperately trying to prolong the war into winter hoping that increased energy prices break the resolve of NATO countries supplying Ukraine.

On top of it all, there are already reports of his specialist troops being pulled from their jobs and deployed as infantry: missileers*, navy, etc. These are troops he can't easily or quickly replace as they are technical fields - when anyone can pull a trigger. Then there are reports that they are recruiting/conscripting from prisons and using those guys as support/security troops in the rear. So in the end, it's going to be the sociopaths and psychopaths that live to parent what's left of the next generation.

It's a losing strategy in the long run. He's destroying what some already believed to be ethnic Russia's last generation.


*missileer is the name for troops that operate the ICBM/long-range missile systems, including nukes. 

What do you expect is going to happen when you have US Senators calling for the direct assassination of President Putin while they rape and pillage pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens?

You think he's just going to turn around and walk away?

LOL:

I was referring to "Putin has added hundreds of brand new (not decades old) Ground-Launched, Sea-Launched, and Air-Launched delivery systems of nuclear weapons over the past 10 years where the US has only added some Air-Launched abilities" which isn't an actual quote, but something you assumed and added. My bad; technically not a quote but still inserting your own bias into the document. 

I've edited and pointed out the flaws in your reading of that document above. Here it is again:

As if "overpaid, overequipped, over-maintained, and overly trained" is actually a disadvantage in a military.

Russia's flagship, the Moskova, which is one of its nuclear delivery systems, was falling apart and not combat-worthy before the war began, according to its own maintenance report.
Translated: docs.google.com/document/d/1v5bGYBs2S7vYlrCD8phIEO1WMM3SA2Sj7Rh8Zh4B4t8/edit
Untranslated so cgvet can read it: docs.google.com/document/d/1lBqJ6Op8d3NFb8geSzTxTAyP3Y1_MtRt4DWlXrxX5f0/edit

ETA: you're also cherry-picking the document and adding in details that aren't there, like the amount of actual delivery systems Putin has added since 2010 (some of which has been used in Ukraine) when the graphic just indicates the types. Note this does not mean the US has no corresponding capability at all, nor is it meant to be the overall assessment of Russian nuke capability, it's just comparing the types of delivery systems added since 2010. You're inferring a lot more than is actually there, as usual.

You should read page 16 onwards.

This document is not a comprehensive review of Russian nuclear capability, it's an assessment of US capability deterrence ; as stated in the opening:


"On January 27, 2017, the President directed the Department of Defense to conduct
a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
deterrent that protects the homeland, assures allies and above all, deters adversaries.
This review comes at a critical moment in our nation’s history, for America confronts
an international security situation that is more complex and demanding than any since
the end of the Cold War. In this environment, it is not possible to delay
modernization of our nuclear forces if we are to preserve a credible nuclear
deterrent—ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from a position of strength
on matters of war and peace."

Again, you're reading into the documents you're linking as sources. Assuming that "hundreds of tests" = hundreds of missiles is a assumption and a logical leap if that is not your area of expertise, which it isn't. ETA: we went over this before - every missile is technically "hypersonic", so it's really not the scare word that NTI wants it to be. 

Did you bother to look up the missiles named in the graphic you cited on page 8 of your first linked document? Turns out many of those were used up for conventional strikes in Ukraine, and if the flagship of the Black Fleet is any indication, the rest may not be capable of being launched. BTW they also found duds that used tech sourced from the west. The Russians can't build their own missiles from scratch, they can only assemble them at best. 

Numbers are meaningless. It's the same as Russia claiming they have 13,000 tanks. They might have the hulls in a yard in Siberia, but they aren't going anywhere. That's why they're using T-62s. They don't actually have more than a few thousand deployable tanks, and many of those are obsolete - not that their newest T-90 is going to be all that effective in the hands of a bunch of untrained, undersupplied, and unmotivated conscripts. 

Lastly, you're cherry-picking quotes again, as if right under your quote is a statement on how the US can deter a first strike. 

Not to mention this from page 8 which you cited earlier:

"...[Russia] mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to “de-escalate” a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. These mistaken perceptions increase the prospect for dangerous miscalculation and escalation."

Page 30:

"The U.S. deterrent tailored to Russia, therefore, will be capable of holding at risk, under all conditions, what Russia’s leadership most values. It will pose insurmountable difficulties to any Russian strategy of aggression against the United States, its allies, or partners and

ensure the credible prospect of unacceptably dire costs to the Russian leadership if it were to choose aggression."

I would suggest you actually read and absorb the entire document you cite, instead of copypasta from whatever Russian source you get this BS from and interpret through your own poor reading of the Bible.