More on Russian Army

People often like to think that structures they are used to exist in other countries, they may be called different or use different flags and colors, but they fundamentally function the same way.

Some would make the same mistake about militaries. Wikipedia even lists comparable military ranks and other such information. 

Some militaries are indeed more of a different paint over the same fundamental structures. Many do train together and learn from each other. Others are originated from a common system such British Empire and inherited basic principles of military organization from the UK.

However, some militaries are much more different from those around them. Swiss Army for example is a very unique system that hardly has anything like it elsewhere in the world. Only a country as unique as Switzerland could produce a military such as theirs and its fundamentally impossible to replicate elsewhere.

Russia too has somewhat unique military. Russian military is not like Swiss, in fact it's more of its polar opposite. However Russian military is neither like a typical NATO one.

Russian military is highly specialized and optimized for just one type of warfare: trenches and artillery. The rest of the military is designed to complement and support this basic doctrine.

Trenches and artillery are fundamentally a WWI approach to war. Infantry digs trenches and set up various obstacles to prevent enemy from advancing. Artillery, located deep within their own lines the bombard enemy positions from afar.

In a typical WWI style shootout between artilleries Russia would likely win. Their gun and rocket propelled artillery are more powerful but more importantly much more numerous than what any of their opponents have. Thus, Russia would be able to turn enemy positions into a literal wasteland much faster than their opponents could. Russian multiple rocket launchers such as Grad or Uragan are designed to achieve just such outcome. They fire their many rockets in fast succession to a broadly defined target area, indiscriminately destroying everything.

Artillery has one clear weakness, it's useless in close combat. Artillery can attack targets 20 kilometers away from them, even across the mountains or other such obstacles. However, it cannot attack an enemy that is right in front of them. If enemy can get to the guns up close, the crew has no choice but to surrender themselves after they destroyed their guns to prevent enemy from capturing the guns and using them as their own.

To compensate for that weakness, there are trenches, mines, barbed wire, dragon teeth, Czech hedgehogs and so on. The idea is if enemy cannot dismantle and cross the line of these obstacles, then they will not be able to advance towards artillery positions and silence the guns. Then the one who has more guns would win.

On one hand optimizing military for one style warfare would allow them to be better at this than any of their opponents. In fact, no other army has as many artillery pieces as Russia.

However, optimizing military for just one style of warfare has its weakness too. If something goes wrong and they are unable to adapt to the changing reality on the battlefield and has no way of fighting back. 

For example, during operation Barbarossa Germans managed to get to Soviet artillery and supplies before infantry could set up trenches and other obstacles. That forced the entire armies to just surrender without any real fight whatsoever. Unlike for example German infantry, Soviet one only knows how to dig trenches, they do not know how to actually fight. Thus, if Germans themselves would have been able to break out of such encirclement, then Soviets could not.

Later during WWII Soviet command always made sure to "maintain front" to prevent Germans from getting towards their artillery and supplies. By front they meant the unbroken line with series of trenches and other obstacles to prevent any and all enemy armor, infantry or other units from crossing.

That is why unlike more autonomous and opportunistic Germans, Soviets always advanced in stages. The went from one natural obstacle to another and clearing and fortifying their new positions in between offensives.

Fundamentally this approach to warfare persists in modern Russian military as well. Technological changes such as aviation or electronic warfare makes it much less foolproof compared to WWI era, but Russia refuses to change. During Kharkiv offensive, Ukraine once again managed to prove that Russian military still has the same vulnerabilities it had in WWII.

It's not so much as Russia refuses to change but that it simply cannot. Soldiers who are drafted into military against their will can do only a finite number of tasks. They can reload artillery, dig trenches, plant mines or roll out barbed wire.

However, if you want them to fight enemy infantry in effective firefight, then you actually had to train them like real soldiers. However, while such skills would allow them to be better soldiers, they will also allow them to mutiny against the command and fight against their government. Considering many of them were drafted forcefully and do not want to serve their country, such a prospect is too dangerous to take any changes.

Officers are afraid of mutiny so they do not teach recruits any skills, that would allow them to mutiny or even survive in the forest on their own. Because if they could survive in the forest, they would just desert. 

For this very reason Russian Army relies exclusively on strategies and tactics that would not allow their soldiers to mutiny, defect to enemy or desert. 

The only exception to this rule is VDV. Every strong and loyal recruit they could find are assigned to this branch. There are 49.000 of them in total and they are used in every firefight with enemy infantry.

There are also various special forces but they are even less numerous.