panzersaurkrautwerfer

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944.  Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed.  
 
Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed.  The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.
 
Which is to say, if your car is wrapped around a telephone pole, but the blinker still works, your car is destroyed, and you do no have a functional car until someone puts it back together again.
 
 
This is one of the worst estimates I have seen.  Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign.  Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

Bee TAC AI has been boosted to manifest the inherent danger of bees, and bees can now mount vehicles.

I didn't care enough for in depth research for the post. Honestly more tired of the stalwart deutchmen never really being defeated when in reality they got their teeth kicked in pretty often.

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944.  Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed.  
 
Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed.  The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.
 
Which is to say, if your car is wrapped around a telephone pole, but the blinker still works, your car is destroyed, and you do no have a functional car until someone puts it back together again.
 
 
This is one of the worst estimates I have seen.  Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign.  Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944.  Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed.  
 
Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed.  The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.
 
Which is to say, if your car is wrapped around a telephone pole, but the blinker still works, your car is destroyed, and you do no have a functional car until someone puts it back together again.
 
 
This is one of the worst estimates I have seen.  Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign.  Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

I didn't care enough for in depth research for the post. Honestly more tired of the stalwart deutchmen never really being defeated when in reality they got their teeth kicked in pretty often.

Pretty much.  Going all the way back to the Soviet era equipment, it was always going to literally destroy everything, this is the apocalypse for anything without a big red star painted on it, and then it:
 
1. Doesn't happen, mysteriously fades into the land of bad photographs and tarps
 
2. Appears.  Is broadly on par with western equipment (superior in some ways, inferior in others).
 
It's pretty easy to retain some sense of skepticism with a record like that.
 
 
This is something that seems to come up pretty often with countries that hold their capabilities very close to their chest.  Chinese tank fans are just as bad for claiming capabilities not even possible with current generation of technology, or using what limited information to inflate something that's actually on it's own merit, not a bad piece of technology, however with all the inflated capabilities, becomes a bit of a joke.

Dunno.  The fact it reappears as a Kampfsgruppe and is referred to as "remnants" seems to indicate it was pretty destroyed.

You're welcome.

No.  What I meant is injecting some comment about education systems is functionally irrelevant to the discussion, then claiming to not want to get into a political discussion.  Russian life expectancy is lower than American life expectancy thereby American fighter planes are vastly superior, but I don't want to get into a discussion about how much better life is in America effectively etc.  
 
Russian hardware isn't "bad" insofar as much as it's "budget."  What I've handled that wasn't third party production generally did again, what it was advertised but there's a wide difference between contemporary western and Russian night optics despite them both saying "night vision" on the box.  Further a lot of the fit and finish stuff I handled was lacking, in places that really needed a steel retention cable there was a cheap fabric strap.  Screws stripped on fairly new pieces of equipment with manual force only.  Corners were clearly cut, and this is something that's consistent with other technical intelligence written on Soviet/Russian hardware.  
 
Will the Aramata be good?  Sure.  Maybe.  But right now we're going into this discussion with the following facts known for sure:
 
1. There is a Russian armored vehicle program called Armata.
 
There's a lot more information of a pretty wide range of assumption, claims, and wild guesses, but we do not even know what the vehicle looks like, is armed with, and so forth.  Which is why I'm getting tired of hearing about the Armata, because honestly at this point I could just claim that it is armed with dual 152 MM autocannons that fire literal beehive rounds (As in hives full of bees) because there's equal parts evidence that it has a two man crew and radar guidance.
 
My incredulity isn't that Russia can design a threat tank, it's that they'll be able to build it.  The thing that killed the previous generation of new Russian designs was economic troubles.  Armata was conceived of and designed during good economic times and high oil prices.  It's supposed to be produced during some of the worst times the Russian economy has faced, and it's being done in a way that's apparently more or less totally ready for Private Strelok to drive out of the factory several months from now, despite the world at large not knowing anything except for a name, and that honest guys, it exists.  
 
Further looking at the performance of the other elements of the recent Russian rearmament programs in terms of the shortfallings of the T-72B, the limited procurement of new rifles and other equipment, and especially the very troubled Russian Air Force efforts, it's clear someone is making some budgetary choices, or things are running out.
 
Does this mean Armata is just another Black Eagle or T-95?  Who knows!  Either way we'll all know more in a few months.  But here's some things we can easily take from this discussion:
 
1. The Economist's ranking of Russian schools has absolutely nothing to this topic, and it was pointless to bring it up.
 
2. Armata does not exist in any reasonable way to be included in CMBS in the near future.

There's a grain of truth in this statement. Destroyed in the military sense does not mean "no survivors has ceased to exist" it means broadly "unable to function until reconstituted."  Plenty of destroyed units would go on to fight another day, but many German units slogging back on foot after burning their remaining vehicles could truly be called destroyed.
 
Excited for the Bulge to VE day.  It's an interesting mix of forces, men, and locations, and Normandy is a bit overdone sometimes. Also promise of future Pershings

There's a grain of truth in this statement. Destroyed in the military sense does not mean "no survivors has ceased to exist" it means broadly "unable to function until reconstituted."  Plenty of destroyed units would go on to fight another day, but many German units slogging back on foot after burning their remaining vehicles could truly be called destroyed.
 
Excited for the Bulge to VE day.  It's an interesting mix of forces, men, and locations, and Normandy is a bit overdone sometimes. Also promise of future Pershings

It is not in terms of the politics, but it is essential to understanding the "why" of Russian defense planning.  Clauswitz was pretty clear on the link between the politics-military affairs relations, and that is still quite valid.  Russian force posture will continue to reflect is political beliefs and orientation, just as much as a nation who's defense priorities include "brain slug defense" will invest heavily in hats made of salt.
 
Which is really why asking me to array Russian forces is silly.  I know there's no conventional threats to Russia, and that much of the thousands and thousands of T-72 and BMP-2 type stuff is simply underutilized scrap metal at this point.  Into the smelter with all of them, buy the six or seven Armatas with the proceeds.  Nuclear modernization is honestly the only "defense" project Russia needs at this point because it is, and remains, a defense to which there's no effective counter (the current generations of ABMs being great for ensuring the three missiles or so Iran/DPRK has get shot down, but doing about zero against anything more than a handful of missiles).  There is also a total and abject lack of countries with a reasonable intent to invade Russian soil, legitimately Russian or otherwise.  
 
But if I believe Merkle is about a very small mustache away from releasing the "real" German military which is hiding in the cellars of Berlin to come and eat all our babushka wearing grandmas and to rape the soil itself in a physical sense (the soil was asking for it, dirty whore soil!), then simply waves of obsolete, wastes of money, time, and soldier equipment will be essential in the forthcoming struggling of patriotic fervor! I must keep all the tanks!  Or else!  Something!  Really!
 
Which paradoxically makes Russia less secure in the long run, because this narrative of constant threat against the Russian people is equally met by the historical narrative of Russians coming west with equal terror and rapey nature to the eastward invasions.  And to that end it ensures the only way to really make a threat to Russia is for Russia to give the west a reason to suspect it which by god Russia has been just great at that from about 1946 on with tanking a short break circa 1991-2002 or so.
 
Anyway.  Acting like defense exists purely in some sort of apolitical vacuum is simply not enough analysis to be worthy of the name.  Russia needs conventional defenses like we need more reality TV shows at this point.
 
And it's already a poor return on investment if it's tromping around in outdated hardware "just in case!" nuclear deterrence fails.  I imagine you could get away with 500-600 and not feel less safe.  There's simply no realistic mission for any of them (troops coming in being doubtful in the extreme, and an offensive into NATO is already pointless, with the "forces" arrayed in the East  China could likely take what it wanted already if it was simply a matter of force imbalance).  The realistic mission for Russian ground forces is limited warfare conducted against neighbors, and being the extreme end of internal security matters (as there's already more than a few internal security agencies).  Simple as that.  The US military has something like 700,000 active "ground" branch personnel but that is with global commitments and a logistical branch to match.  With no global reach outside of what is done with nuclear weapons, and no realistic missions that do not share a land border with Russia, 700,000-1 million is having a suitcase full of parkas in the Sahara.  Wasteful, pointless, and a burden to the person who has to carry it.
 
 
Smartass answer:
 
I'm going to scrap it all, build the biggest dacha I can, and sleep comfortably under a nuclear umbrella.
 
Less smartass answer:
 
I'm going to seriously assess what parts of Russia are essential to Russia being able to exist as a functional country.  I'll align assets against those first.  Then I'm going to assess what routes from the proverbial hinterlands to the heartlands are most able to support military operations.  A simple reality is that while tanks can go all over, the logistics train cannot, there's going to be something that a potential invader will tie his logistics to (or potentially a network of lesser routes).  From that, I'll build a comprehensive asset denial plan to make transiting those hinterlands difficult (demolition, flooding etc etc) that can be carried out by local security forces or even civil servants.  Then I'll allocate some manner of forces to cover these approaches.  Basically mirroring the old American type ACR, armor heavy but all arms under the same BDE/REG structure, their job would be to keep the enemy from being able to advance rapidly, or threatening flanks and rear areas.
 
The only realistic way to defend Russia is a mobile type defense. Right now in so many words you have the "good" stuff concentrated regionally but not against threats.  Then you have lots of stuff that still costs money that is of minimal value against a force that can actually invade Russia.  This is dumb.  If in a few years the western thing settles down, but by god China is getting uppity it requires a much more pronounced realignment.  Having forces that may be garrisoned centrally, but that are capable of rapid movement is by far more optimal, and instead of simply wasting region's forces away, instead having a smaller Cavalry style organization who's job is to die gallantly while giving time for mobile forces to mass in theater (as again, this is not 1941 and there are simply not the forces to have more than one primary theater) for the counter attack is a better use of money, and resources.  
 
Anyway it's a moot point as the whole nuclear weapons thing makes this about as likely as discussing the Mexican invasion of Texas.  But right now it's forces spread thin, often protecting "space" vs "things."  A smaller, mobile force with more cutting edge equipment that can be massed while screening forces buy time is the best solution.
 
 
 
I don't.  It's just marginal utility without more wheeled assets in terms of AT or direct fire support.  I think there's like 50 Nona-SVKs for the entire Russian military?  There really needs to be something that can fill some tanklike roles in the BTR formations without being a tank.  Or else you can move rapidly all over and get your teeth kicked in by Type 98s or whatever.
 
 
We have been invaded through Canada, and Russian Imperialist claims are still voiced by members of the Russian government!  It is at least as serious of a threat as NATO is to Russia.  Also Sarah Palin can totally see you guys and that stuff you're doing.

The communications is pretty killer, as it can be paired with very precision fires.  It also helps with spotting I think in that neighboring squads will alert each other better to targets.  Also a lot more high end optics.  If you're put either unit in a fog or other degraded spotting situations, the US squad will still be marginally effective, while the Russians can go pretty Helen Keller.  While Russian squads do not lack for the ability to fight at night, the passive type systems they use are not as effective at basic spotting, or as mentioned working at all in foggy/rainy conditions as the thermal type optics employed by the US.
 
These are really your decisive elements.  The ability to better spot targets, and engage them first is pretty much the definition of how to win any engagement (basically the first person to get a round broadly on target tends to win engagements more often by a level of several magnitudes).  The communications piece means that your idiot dismount squad can drop some serious artillery hurt in a pretty timely manner, and at the least feed your situation awareness piece pretty well.
 
In terms of weapons, I'd say the only real meaningful difference is the availability of the Javelin to US squads.  The small arms offer no meaningful difference outside of optics, same deal with grenade launchers (M-25 is not "bad" but it is not quite the infantry eraser it is against unarmored troops).  Light AT RPG type weapons are all equally marginally useful (Russians get more to shoot, but I have not seen many situations were I've slapped the desk and cursed the ability to feet another AT4/RPG into an APS system, or watched it just go "nope!" after striking armor, it's either a situation where it is enough to get the job done with 1-2 rockets, or not worth doing at all).  
 
Armor is also again, about the same, both survive and die from about the same sort of weapons. 

It is not in terms of the politics, but it is essential to understanding the "why" of Russian defense planning.  Clauswitz was pretty clear on the link between the politics-military affairs relations, and that is still quite valid.  Russian force posture will continue to reflect is political beliefs and orientation, just as much as a nation who's defense priorities include "brain slug defense" will invest heavily in hats made of salt.
 
Which is really why asking me to array Russian forces is silly.  I know there's no conventional threats to Russia, and that much of the thousands and thousands of T-72 and BMP-2 type stuff is simply underutilized scrap metal at this point.  Into the smelter with all of them, buy the six or seven Armatas with the proceeds.  Nuclear modernization is honestly the only "defense" project Russia needs at this point because it is, and remains, a defense to which there's no effective counter (the current generations of ABMs being great for ensuring the three missiles or so Iran/DPRK has get shot down, but doing about zero against anything more than a handful of missiles).  There is also a total and abject lack of countries with a reasonable intent to invade Russian soil, legitimately Russian or otherwise.  
 
But if I believe Merkle is about a very small mustache away from releasing the "real" German military which is hiding in the cellars of Berlin to come and eat all our babushka wearing grandmas and to rape the soil itself in a physical sense (the soil was asking for it, dirty whore soil!), then simply waves of obsolete, wastes of money, time, and soldier equipment will be essential in the forthcoming struggling of patriotic fervor! I must keep all the tanks!  Or else!  Something!  Really!
 
Which paradoxically makes Russia less secure in the long run, because this narrative of constant threat against the Russian people is equally met by the historical narrative of Russians coming west with equal terror and rapey nature to the eastward invasions.  And to that end it ensures the only way to really make a threat to Russia is for Russia to give the west a reason to suspect it which by god Russia has been just great at that from about 1946 on with tanking a short break circa 1991-2002 or so.
 
Anyway.  Acting like defense exists purely in some sort of apolitical vacuum is simply not enough analysis to be worthy of the name.  Russia needs conventional defenses like we need more reality TV shows at this point.
 
And it's already a poor return on investment if it's tromping around in outdated hardware "just in case!" nuclear deterrence fails.  I imagine you could get away with 500-600 and not feel less safe.  There's simply no realistic mission for any of them (troops coming in being doubtful in the extreme, and an offensive into NATO is already pointless, with the "forces" arrayed in the East  China could likely take what it wanted already if it was simply a matter of force imbalance).  The realistic mission for Russian ground forces is limited warfare conducted against neighbors, and being the extreme end of internal security matters (as there's already more than a few internal security agencies).  Simple as that.  The US military has something like 700,000 active "ground" branch personnel but that is with global commitments and a logistical branch to match.  With no global reach outside of what is done with nuclear weapons, and no realistic missions that do not share a land border with Russia, 700,000-1 million is having a suitcase full of parkas in the Sahara.  Wasteful, pointless, and a burden to the person who has to carry it.
 
 
Smartass answer:
 
I'm going to scrap it all, build the biggest dacha I can, and sleep comfortably under a nuclear umbrella.
 
Less smartass answer:
 
I'm going to seriously assess what parts of Russia are essential to Russia being able to exist as a functional country.  I'll align assets against those first.  Then I'm going to assess what routes from the proverbial hinterlands to the heartlands are most able to support military operations.  A simple reality is that while tanks can go all over, the logistics train cannot, there's going to be something that a potential invader will tie his logistics to (or potentially a network of lesser routes).  From that, I'll build a comprehensive asset denial plan to make transiting those hinterlands difficult (demolition, flooding etc etc) that can be carried out by local security forces or even civil servants.  Then I'll allocate some manner of forces to cover these approaches.  Basically mirroring the old American type ACR, armor heavy but all arms under the same BDE/REG structure, their job would be to keep the enemy from being able to advance rapidly, or threatening flanks and rear areas.
 
The only realistic way to defend Russia is a mobile type defense. Right now in so many words you have the "good" stuff concentrated regionally but not against threats.  Then you have lots of stuff that still costs money that is of minimal value against a force that can actually invade Russia.  This is dumb.  If in a few years the western thing settles down, but by god China is getting uppity it requires a much more pronounced realignment.  Having forces that may be garrisoned centrally, but that are capable of rapid movement is by far more optimal, and instead of simply wasting region's forces away, instead having a smaller Cavalry style organization who's job is to die gallantly while giving time for mobile forces to mass in theater (as again, this is not 1941 and there are simply not the forces to have more than one primary theater) for the counter attack is a better use of money, and resources.  
 
Anyway it's a moot point as the whole nuclear weapons thing makes this about as likely as discussing the Mexican invasion of Texas.  But right now it's forces spread thin, often protecting "space" vs "things."  A smaller, mobile force with more cutting edge equipment that can be massed while screening forces buy time is the best solution.
 
 
 
I don't.  It's just marginal utility without more wheeled assets in terms of AT or direct fire support.  I think there's like 50 Nona-SVKs for the entire Russian military?  There really needs to be something that can fill some tanklike roles in the BTR formations without being a tank.  Or else you can move rapidly all over and get your teeth kicked in by Type 98s or whatever.
 
 
We have been invaded through Canada, and Russian Imperialist claims are still voiced by members of the Russian government!  It is at least as serious of a threat as NATO is to Russia.  Also Sarah Palin can totally see you guys and that stuff you're doing.

I gotta say, the old Kettler is much better than the new false Kettler.  

Yeah. that's a K2.  They're hardly even operational in the ROK, let alone in Ukraine.  
 
The reality is if the US did under the table lethal weapons, is they'd either be Russian sourced for lol, or otherwise correct for Eastern Europe.  It was the same playbook for Afghanistan (largely Soviet weapons from Egypt, swapped for American hardware), and with only a few exceptions the policy for the Cold War and beyond*
 
OP article is good though.  Foreign Policy is pretty reputable when it comes to at least voicing interesting opinions.  
 
*About the only exception to the "arming" vs "arms deal" method was the supplying Stingers, and that was more a reflection of the state of Strelas.  If the US did supply weapons, a large stock of Russian/Polish/"hey look this fell off a truck in Siberia!" type weapons, a smaller one of very common US weapons (TOWs are great for this) is much more likely, with possibly a very few signature US weapons provided (so as to say "we have sent only a hundred Javelins and six hundred missiles!" while not owning up to the thousands of AT-14, RPG-29s, later model RPG-7s we acquired to ship to the Ukraine).
 
This is not to imply that is what is happening now, merely that the whole "AND HERE IS A US TANK MURDERING RUSSIANS IN DONBAS!" meme is idiotic to the extreme and should be treated as such.  

I gotta say, the old Kettler is much better than the new false Kettler.  

I always shoot three against MBTs. Often with light AFVs I'll just point target with a battery salvo with conventional shells. That'll usually make some sad faces. Buildings I prefer the same three shot barrage as it seems to increase lethality against both the structure and contents.

I gotta say, the old Kettler is much better than the new false Kettler.  

I gotta say, the old Kettler is much better than the new false Kettler.  

Wicky,
 
Interesting, if they cut back, wonder if they are going to put the resources into  AVF robotic support type tanks and supplies instead.  
As far as Crimea goes, I am baffled as to why everyone in Europe seems to be on Flouride or some sort of relaxant or they are being extorted, bribed, threatened into submission.  They had to know that Russia would want all of that land they lost, back.  So, why did they not see this ahead of time?  They need to realize  all the Mafias are ridding us off and are not to be trusted.  They are going to take Kiev next, I feel.  Why, because that is where I saw the Mafia at the CERN laboratory, I do have that picture if anyone is interested.  They intend to have control of this.  It is more that just a piece of technology.  It is their ticket to ride out of here or bring in reinforcements.  They think, if, they move a CERN laboratory closer to Putin, they will have mafia protection.  The last CERN failed (Swiss Zionist Mafia).  This new CERN is very expensive and many governments are being bullied,  to pay for it.   Russian planes have been flying over England recently, bulling them.  Russian has spies in MI-6,  London, forgot one of their names, go to Abel Danger.  This Russian mafia and other mafias in U.S., Australia, and more are blackmailing European (Recently Angela Merkel's, Germans, Poland, and other  world leaders by crashing their airplanes, school children even, using the Boeing uninterrupted Auto-Pilot +  Air Tranquilizer  (ATI)  to tranquilize pilots, crew, and passengers to terrorize countries into pouring money into the CERN Laboratory in Ukraine and other land grabs.   A list of flights where they used the BUAP + ATI  to force planes down for revenge to governments who failed to comply.  Adam Air 574, Kenya Airway 507, Speedbird 38, Turkish 1951, Colgan 3407, Air France 447, Air Afrikiyah 771, Sukhoi Superjet, MH370, MH17, QZ8501, and now the one downed in French Alps.  There is a reason why the co-pilot had steady breathing, he was out cold.  They own the mainstream news, so you will be reading from their mafia owned script writers.
 
So, if we want to make life easier, now, and later, we need to take Putin seriously, one tank in Mariupol is not enough to  stop their advancing toward Kiev.  Check my sources, meanwhile,  ensure pilots have warning systems in the cockpit when the air is foul, extra oxygen to prevent the plane from being droned.  For more on this see Abeldanger.net, on Livestream as Abel danger.   Around 1995, one of the airlines in Europe filed a suit for 800 million because their 747's airplane technologists for Lafthunsa, Germanwings is an affiliate, (recent France crash ,pay back) for filing this suit where technicians, found extra stuff in a electric equipment  compartment (E&E).   They filed, to get Boeing to pay for having to remove the components on all of the jets they purchased from Boeing.  To protect Boeing and us, these need to be removed immediately.  New York Bronx, Base 1 Technologies Clinton aides activated the patented devices BUAP + ATI to kill revenge Yvonne Selke, a Pentagon spy in the satellite mapping branch of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.  This is how they  revenge after being fired from key positions or to kill a whistleblower or to kill  Yvonne Salik.  We provided Ukraine with satellite imagery because Putin had control of Ukraines therefore always had the upper hand.  The mafia is trying to intimidate the Pentagon so we will stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine.
 
Let us put an end to mafia controlled banking, markets, and manufacturers exploiting humanity.  If they can blackmail our Pentagon, world governments, we have no representation.  Find out more, we have to wake up,  Airbus, FAA, JAA all know about this, so why aren't they doing anything about it, they are complicit.  Soon,  people who don't know about it,  will.   Covering up by killing off any whistleblowers exposing this, is a very dark world.  Not the world I want to hand over to my children. 
http://new.livestream.com/abeldanger

I think Russia leaving treaties would mean more if they followed them in the first place.
 
Anyway.  Nice to see some signs of military commitment in eastern europe.

It's why spaceflight will become cheaper and every home will have its own helicopter.
 
In so many words, the honestly epic struggle to get an automated truck to drive down a road without crashing, and the very restricted situational awareness of an unmanned system make me have some pretty strong reservations about something able to maneuver and fight on a level of a manned tank, existing in the near future.  There's no much armed robots do now that humans do much better (outside of flying platforms), which really accounts quite well for why things like SABER and other UGVs are limited to EOD and "camera on wheels" applications.

Russia is operating several totally different flavors of MBTs, IFVs, APCs, rifles manchine guns, etc, etc etc.  If it just picked one and said "okay, screw you T-80/T-72/T-62 etc, everything from now on is T-90 based" it'd save a lot of money and result in a force structure that was not nearly so uneven in capabilities.  While some of it is a reflection of the cold war leftovers Russia has been saddled with, it's also a reflection of the sort of dualistic pretending it's still 1989 and that mission set is both valid and realistic, while making robot guards/bearsuit body armor/not being able to figure out which more or less the same rifle it needs to buy to replace a rifle that honestly just needs a better way to mount accessories to prepare for a "future" conflict that's still pretty poorly defined.
 
More focus in equipment (with something more realistic than the Armata given the budget at hand), and a more realistic mission would likely go a long way in allowing Russia to accomplish national security objectives with less overhead and redundant capabilities, or questionable thinking.