How to define a fighting nation? When many people mention Russia, they will start talking about "fighting nation" like a wheel. However, most people's impression of "fighting nation" comes from that group of funny videos. Obviously, this cannot be the benchmark of "fighting nation". Aside from the folk saying of "fighting nation", many people will describe Russians as "martial" or "good at fighting". The origin of this impression is directly related to the Soviet Union. As the number one hero who defeated the Nazis, it seems that Russia is well-deserved to be called a "good soldier". Of course, this is without considering the exchange ratio between the Soviet Union and the Nazis. The personnel exchange ratio between the Soviet Union and Germany is 2: 1, and the tank is 9:2. However, we can't be like France, because a war will define the whole nation. What's more, Russia has the most vast territory in the world, which means that it has sufficient strategic depth and reserve base. Otherwise, the German Blitzkrieg was enough to destroy all the industries of the Soviet Union at the beginning, and there would be no big counterattack later. (France died here) If we subtract the geographical, resource and population advantages that Russia objectively has, we can judge the "militancy" and "militancy" of the nation itself respectively. We need to define "good fighting" and "martial arts" first. "Good at fighting" can be interpreted as a strong outside combat capability, that is, the ability to defend and counterattack overseas without relying on one's own territory. For example, in the heyday of Britain and France, both in Europe and overseas, they can play a good record. Especially in Britain, the population, resources and depth are second-rate, but it can play an empire that does not fall, which makes people have to give a thumbs up. Until World War II, the Royal Fleet was the absolute overlord in the ocean. The definition of "militancy" is simpler, that is, the state's view of "force" and the actual position of military personnel in society. Finally, it depends on the sports status of this country. Although modern weapons are smoothing out the physical gap between soldiers. But good physique is still the foundation of soldiers. Of course, a nation that despises sports and fears force cannot be called martial arts. In the war between Russia and European countries, let's first judge whether the Russians are "good at fighting". Let's see if the Russians in history have the ability to make beautiful achievements after leaving their vast strategic depth. After deducting the golden account khanate period, most China people's impression of Russia comes from modern times. So we choose147-19th century Russia for interpretation. It is neither enslaved by Mongols like the Principality of Moscow; Nor is it a self-defeating Soviet Union obsessed with real strength. It has invaded the capital and made expeditions to Eurasia, establishing a vast colony. At this stage of Russia, it is typical to fight with two fists-attacking Europe and invading Asia. The former is mainly reflected in the invasion and colonization of eastern European countries led by Poland for hundreds of years, as well as the eleven wars with the Ottoman Empire; The latter is mainly reflected in the encroachment on Central Asian countries and the Qing Dynasty. Due to the relatively convenient transportation, the Russian army can dispatch tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of troops to compete for hegemony. This makes Europeans always regard hair as a "gray animal", but what is the Russian record? Let's take Poland and Turkey as representatives to see the actual level of "fighting nation". As the old enemy of Ross, Poles have fought 18 wars since the Kiev expedition. If we limit the time to17-19th century, we will eliminate several asymmetric wars. We will find that although the Russian army can defeat the Polish army on the battlefield, it undoubtedly has a quantitative advantage, and the institutional defects with Polish characteristics have also caused problems. The Russian army not only has painful memories of being wiped out by the Polish army on the ground in the Polish-Moscow War and the Smolensk War, but also brings up the past events of the Russian-Polish War and the suppression of the Balmer League. Generally speaking, the Russians can defeat Poland, largely relying on the internal problems of the Poles (the reason why Poland was divided for the first time was that the Poles could not stabilize the order on their own) and their own volume advantages. But not all European countries are like this. When Russia's opponent was replaced by Osman, the process of the war was much smoother. From 1676, the two sides started the first large-scale war (not counting the astrakhan expedition of 1568), the Russians won most of the wars, and the few victories of Ottoman were based on European allies. To be sure, in many cases, Ottoman's individual soldier quality is not as good as that of Russia, at least in terms of infantry quality, there is a huge gap between the two sides. Compared with Catholic Poland, Osman, who has more Asian and African characteristics, undoubtedly had a hard time facing Mao Xiong alone. Russia's aggression against Asia, if Russia needs the help of its allies to fight Poland and western Europe, to ensure its own volume advantage; In order to confront Turkey, we need to ensure that its relative diplomatic isolation will not give the Ottomans a chance to get reinforcements from Europe. Then, when Russia attacks North Asia, Northeast Asia and Central Asia, it only needs to ensure that no other big countries are playing with the tiger's mouth and the climate is on its own side. Even in military strength, it doesn't matter that the Russian army is absolutely weak. 1839, Russian troops began to invade Turkestan. The Russian army is in a weak position in military strength, with 5000 combat troops and logistics. 65438+February 30th, 2000-3000 soldiers of Shiva Khan attacked them. As a result, only five Russian soldiers were killed, 13 were injured, and 80 people were killed in Shivahan. In the end, due to the bad weather, a large number of Russian soldiers fell ill and died, and had to be ordered to retreat. 1847, the Russians learned from the failure experience of 1839 and changed to slow progress. They are now building two forts in the Syr Darya Delta, and then exploring downstream by steamboat. This relatively conservative strategy has achieved results. Finally, the Russian army wiped out tens of thousands of Turkestan soldiers at the cost of more than 400 deaths, less than 1000 injuries and more than 600 deaths. Cossacks who fought against Kazakhs were in outer Manchuria, and Russian troops approached more smoothly. Often, the expeditions of hundreds or thousands of people with the fortress strategy of * * * version can make the Qing army tired of coping. In the northwest, the Qing Dynasty got loans from the British through Hu Xueyan, bought a lot of German machinery and equipment, and managed to stabilize the war situation on the western front. However, the Qing Dynasty still lost 60,000 square kilometers of land west of the Horgos River. Therefore, the Russian army can be said to be like a duck to water on the eastern front. Japan, which can be called the ceiling of martial arts in East Asia, narrowly defeated the Russian army in the Far East with the help of the British army in the Russo-Japanese War. The map of the Russo-Japanese War drawn by Russia is different from the "warrior" of the Russian people, and can be analyzed from multiple dimensions. However, the best way is undoubtedly to observe the views of the people, especially the upper elite, on joining the army. Because the poor may fight for votes or money. No matter how poor the country is, it is unlikely that soldiers will starve. Being a soldier is really a good choice for the bottom people in poor countries. However, the nobles and elites have no such worries. They are also the superstructure of this country. Their enthusiasm for joining the army well reflects the actual situation of this country. For example, British officers have always been dominated by nobles, and they have paid a huge price for this. After World War I, many nobles' heirs died, so they had to modify the inheritance law to maintain their families. World War I brought more pain to Britain than World War II. Similarly, the Junk nobles in Germany paid a bloody price for the establishment and maintenance of the empire. Especially after World War II, Germans with "Feng" in their names were basically excluded from politics. Even a well-known liberal like Hayek will be attacked by opponents because of the word "feng" in his name. This also coincides with the principle of "equal responsibility and obligation". Although Hitler was not an aristocrat, Germany launched a war, and the aristocrats would take part in the war whether they wanted to or not, and pay for the defeat. In contrast to Russia, the gap between the two sides is not a star and a half. The Russian army was originally a lifelong military service system. All citizens must spend the rest of their lives in the army as long as they join the army. However, the aristocracy soon succeeded in simplifying their conditions of service. First, a brother in a noble family was exempted from military service, and then the period of military service was limited to 25 years. 1762, the aristocratic class was completely exempted from military service obligations. Later, rich people also joined this link and proposed to use money to exempt from military service. /kloc-in the 0/9th century, there were 30 million taxpayers in Russia, including businessmen, honorary citizens and the middle class, 6 million of whom were exempted from military service obligations through economic means. It is difficult to compare them with their western neighbors. But the Russian elite is not without its merits. Russia at this stage is famous for its music, paintings and novels. Contrary to the impression of "fighting nation" in some people's minds, Russians are very literary. Many textbooks from the Soviet era are still used by many art students, including China. It can only be said that some people in China really lack the most basic understanding of their northern neighbors. I can't believe that such a literary nation is regarded as an American fool. Conclusion Russians are good at fighting, but not good at fighting. The key depends on who their opponent is. When the opponents are Poland and Sweden, Russia relies on volume crushing and then uses diplomatic attack; When the opponent was a Turk, the Russian army used the quality and technical advantages of infantry and navy to cooperate with large-scale crushing, and tried to prevent Osman from obtaining assistance through diplomatic means; When the opponent is replaced by an Asian country, Russians need to be alert to the interference of other big countries, especially Britain. As long as this is guaranteed and the unaccustomed away disadvantage is overcome, the Russian attack is basically overwhelming. As for martial arts, the Russian military service system has well expressed the fact that "Russians are not martial arts". After all, before World War I, the choice of the elite was largely the weather vane of this nation. On the contrary, Russia's artistic attainments can completely rival those of its western neighbors. It can only be said that the network age has caused more misunderstandings than we thought.