Türkiyenin akp ile nazik ..tünü dünya daha henüz görmedi test edilmedi bu, akpli kainat imaminin ülküsünden dolayi ! Gazze daha ilk 1.haftada bin tane 15 temmuz gördü hala ayakta iman o işte arabin en onurlusu filistinliler cünkü mescidi aksanin muhafizi. Türkiye bürokrasisi içinde olarak yani 15 temmuz destanın yarisi akp ile firildak 15 temmuzdan 250 şehit gazi kahramandan başka hiçbir umumî savaş cihad sinavi vermedi gözünü aç gözünü
What is the decisive criterion for the allocation of places on the list? How, for example, can Germany be behind Spain, even though all values are higher except for the navy?
@@notwho-uf4nt ВВП номинальный 1,5%.Против 24% у США.Это в 16 раз меньше чем у США в 2,5 раза меньше чем Англия при том что население Англии в 3 раза меньше.Это означает что средний англичанин живёт в 6 раз лучше среднего россеянца
How did you calculate? According to your data, Morocco 61, Belarus 60 and Bulgaria 59 should be placed in reverse order. And this is not the only mistake
Ровно такая же ошибка, как и русня до сих пор остается в топ 3. После полного разгрома регулярной армии нацистской рашки, уничтожения сотни тысяч мобилизированных и постоянном призыве зэков на войне (а это я молчу про зависимость от КНДР и КНР) - рашка точно не может быть на 2 месте до сих пор
@@wordmonster448 расскажи статистику боевикам Хамас)твоя Сша не может пол года победить,а афганистан выгнал Сша))на украине Сша 3 года ничего не может сделать)просит оружие у Эквадора))😄😄😄
@@defintity_9951завоеваны?Бравые американские парни сидели на укреплённых базах и охраняли только себя.А потом их пинком под сраку отправили восвояси.Повторили "подвиг" своих дедов во Вьетнаме.А те,в свою очередь,"победу" в Арденнах. Давай уже будем объективны по отношению к американской армии.Война-это не то,что показывает Голливуд.На самом деле все страшнее и прозаичнее и англосаксы в этом смысле "жидковаты" будут.
@@A_l_e_x_UKR Чему завидовать? Тому, что и Россия, и Украина нищие?😂 Если думал, что я русский, то не обижайся, но я в этой войне хоть и не за Россию, но точно так же не за Украину...Меня бесит то, что моя страна тоже вам помогла отправив более 100к тонн нефти, абсолютно бесплатно, в то время когда народ нуждается в высокой зарплате. А Украина ни хрена не сделала, когда мы воевали
Yes, Ukraine is trash, Russia will destroy them, don't worry, I'm glad most Americans disagree with this sending aid to Ukraine, and I'm not even American.
Совершенно необъективно, считать по бюджету, ну все мы знаем как воруют в США именно на обороне, тратят триллионы на самолёты которые не летаю, корабли которые не плавают. Армия США раздута, но когда они воевали ? Совершенно не понятно как тут считали, но понял одно, автор канала очень любит Америку.
top strongest 1 person with machine gun 2 person with m3 3 person with 2 45 pistol 4 person with 1 45 pistol 5 person with machete but does not count those who has will to fight
@@user-lu7np8ss5e Turquia, Coreia do Sul e Itália são mesmo mais fortes que o Brasil. Porém o Brasil não tem nenhum inimigo externo. E está no continente mais pacífico do mundo. Não tem necessidade de se armar mais do que já está.
@@LargadoBSB mais forte do que brasil? Hermano En que? Te apuesto que solo mi pais colombia puede reventar korea del sur en dos semanas , pues en 1950 los defendimos de korea del norte en la chamada "guerra de korea". Ahora brasil fue la que invadio italia en 1943 creo yo y eliminaron a Mussolini. No podeos desprestigiar nuestras naciones. Tenemos que unirnos en contra de estas ""potencias""
@@goldknightshaka7621 Colômbia vive em guerra com os cartéis de droga e com vários problemas na fronteira com a Venezuela.Brasil só a polícia da conta do crime embora alguns governantes sejam convíctos com a criminalidade.E Brasil não tem problemas com nenhum vizinho,mantem na ativa só o necessario e com uma reserva de quase 3 milhões de reservistas,quase 3 vezes mais do que o triplo de toda américa do sul juntas...A Força do Brasil é descomunal...
@@alanalansatos2114 ele é só um civil, não está a par da situação, e também você esqueceu de mencionar que quando a Argentina acionou o acordo com os EUA para defender as maldivas os EUA cagaram e deixaram eles lutarem sozinhos, o Brasil que segurou alguns caças dos britânicos mas isso porque invadiram nosso espaço aéreo.
How did they come up with these rankings? The defense budgets aren’t ranked in order, and nothing troop numbers are in order. I always think the lowest ones are the coolest who cares about the best they are always best by default. This has Iceland
These rankings are of global firepower index which ranks all the 145 countries in military strength according to manpower, landpower, airpower, naval power, financials, labour force strength and geography and logistics and you can't say anything according to their ranking like this only first get information about it
In my opinion, Russia is number 1, because it was attacked by more than 35 countries and the economic embargo was still able to survive, in fact, many are interested in joining BRICS😅
Economic embargos aren't so destructive, also some products price in Russia grew by 150% by the embargo, also Russia is probably being secretly financed economicaly by China.
Number 1? Its taking them 2 years to take over Ukraine man.. What you even talking about.. Their army and technogical support is shite. I mean they been much better when USSR was existing.. Only power they gotta now is only them nukes, which I think most of them don't work anyway..
2:51 Defence budget of Armenia 🇦🇲 1,5 billion dollars $ dont 632 million. Soldiers of Armenia 55000 + 25000(Soldiers of Nagorno-Karabakh)=75000 active personnel ✊🏿🇦🇲
Yeah sure but Russia has terrible strategic geography. Its access to warm water ports is under the control of Turkey and Scandinavia both NATO members, the western plain is easy to invade, it’s surrounded by NATO, and the USA has dominance in Asia. If Russia was more democratic, less corrupt, and less of a bully historically it would be much better off as it wouldn’t be surrounded
The Russian Armed Forces took first place in the updated ranking of U.S. magazine. News & World Report. The assessment is based on surveys of residents of 36 countries, a total of 17.2 thousand people were surveyed. She was nominated according to 73 criteria. Most of the respondents said that the Russian army is the strongest in the world. The Ukrainian Armed Forces took sixth place. The US, China, Israel and South Korea took second, third, fourth and fifth place respectively. At the end of the list are the armies of Estonia, Singapore and Luxembourg.
You don't determine who has the most powerful military force by conducting a survey. What do average citizens know about military strength, tech, economy, and warfare? US has the best military tech, most war experience, best economy, bases everywhere, allies everywhere, and all the best military companies - Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. - are in USA. All that would come in full force if WW3 happened.
Soldiers are selected according to the principles: friendly, cold-blooded, non-confrontational, executive, able to work in one team. Aggressive, nervous, conflicted are rejected at the stage of formation of the unit. Commanders try to select representatives of different ethnic groups in one unit so that the general consciousness is not the same, because extreme situations are different. the principle of military brotherhood (historical address in the Russian army "brother") Video *"Soldiers of Great Russia",* one platoon: Russian soldiers in Ukraine (ethnic composition: ethnic Russians (Balto Slavs with Finno-Ugrians mixture), ethnic Ukrainians (Balto-Slavs with Turks mixture), Ethnic Tatars (Finno-Ugrians with Turks mixture), Ethnic Caucasians (Arabs with Turcs and Iranians mixture)) The song "Wait for me" *1QWCPhzSfm0* Soldier after the action, a slight injury */shorts/I31SIWZzeLo*
@@Deezhan Rankings and polls don't matter. I will describe why below. Publication of a military analyst in the UN research structure: “Counting the number of units of military equipment is the most senseless task in existence. So it is impossible to get an adequate assessment of the strength of the Army, because there are much more important factors than armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, aircraft, and so on. This does not work. Many still believe that victory in the coming war will be for those who have more high technology. I hasten to disappoint - technology actually has an insignificant impact. Money is also considered one of the myths - whoever is richer can afford to almost buy every person inside the enemy country. Alas, this is not so. The main goal of any modern army is politics. Fulfillment of specific political tasks. There is no war for the sake of war, and victory is only politics. Therefore, any war is also politics, just using more radical means to achieve the task. Even when it comes to containing the aggressor country. Many now think that the Russians have surrendered in Syria. I do not think so. Their commander-in-chief clearly outlined two tasks. The first is to stabilize the legitimate government, the second is to create conditions to find a political compromise. Note that the goal of the complete destruction of the opposition was not pursued here. In political language, this is - and there is a victory. Both tasks were achieved and for this it was not necessary to completely destroy the forces of the second side. Although they could wipe out resistance from the face of the earth, using a small part of their nuclear potential. America is exactly the opposite. Of course, the United States has trained soldiers. There is also a technological advantage. Most likely, we are the first in the world in military technology. Hence, the military potential is greater than that of any other country in the world. Everything would be fine, but it doesn't matter. In reality, things are completely different. Consider World War II, where the US military literally did nothing. They won only the most shameful of victories, and those with very, very great difficulty. Take the same Panama - there they simply did not see any resistance. And is this a win? Go ahead. If I was ever asked to choose a military intervention, I would be reluctant to name Desert Storm. The Iraqis were then expelled from Kuwait, however, they had to pay too high a price for this. So what kind of assessment of the armed forces can we talk about? Yes, the Americans have the most advanced weapons, but comparing this with the real combat potential of Russia is simply pointless. All these years they carried out combat missions with the least losses. What about the Americans? Achieved only a few political goals, keeping quiet about the rest. Expensive and technologically advanced is not equal to victory. It is unlikely that even the Russians themselves will argue that for 10 years in Afghanistan, especially at the start of hostilities, they had absolutely no equipment. But the Americans were already allocating $20 billion annually for the military operation. But who actually turned out to be the most effective? Soviet troops managed to take control of the entire country during the day, and at night - the Afghans themselves. No fighters. What happened to the US then? Kabul, control over which was weakening every now and then? At the same time, the Soviet people built many hospitals, dams, airports, roads there - they made people happier. This is where I propose to stop. I think that many adequate people are now able to independently draw a parallel between the real military potential and the availability of modern technologies, huge budgets. You can argue all you want, but I consider Russia the most powerful country on the planet. Although their forces are not the largest, most technologically advanced, they are the most combat-ready."
@@Deezhan The crew of the Sarmat strategic missile system with heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles has taken up combat duty. The head of Roscosmos, Yuri Borisov, spoke about this during the Share Your Knowledge marathon on September 1. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing compared to the size and destructive power of the Sarmat missile, which is approximately two thousand times greater than the shells used to carry out the bombings mentioned. The Russian missile is capable of wiping out large areas (more than 551 thousand square kilometers), roughly equivalent to the area of France, which this missile can reach in just three minutes. One Sarmat missile is guaranteed to destroy a state like Texas, and ten are guaranteed to destroy the United States entirely. The deployment of the Sarmat missile system marked a new milestone: nowhere in the world is there an analogue of this weapon in terms of combat and operational characteristics. These are also units that fly at hypersonic speed and are capable of bypassing American missile defense positions. At the same time, not a single supercomputer is capable of calculating the trajectory for American kinetic missile defense missiles so that they are capable of shooting down at least one Russian maneuvering warhead. One of the most important features of this complex is its ability to strike through the North and South Poles, and travel at ultra-low altitude. It has a highly modernized radar and missile defense penetration mechanism. This means that after passing over South America, the warheads will enter the territory of the United States from the southern side, and then American air defense systems will be powerless to resist the Russian devil. A special feature of the terrifying rocket is its rather short stage (booster stage). That is, from the moment it is launched from the silo until it enters space, the rocket spends a minimum of time in the atmosphere, which makes it difficult for it to be intercepted by American and European missile defense systems, especially those located in Poland and Romania. Thanks to the adoption of this missile system, Russia has significantly surpassed the United States in military potential. “The adoption of the Sarmat has further widened the gap between Russia and the United States in the capabilities of their ground-based strategic missile forces, with the US ICBM arsenal currently the oldest and least sophisticated in the world, consisting of 1970-1970-era Minuteman III missiles. 's, which have undergone relatively few updates to their capabilities,” the observer notes. "Sarmat" is a three-stage intercontinental rocket with liquid engines with a flight range of up to 18 thousand kilometers and a launch weight of 208 tons. Sarmat can carry up to ten large and 16 small warheads. The RS-28 Sarmat ICBM is capable of delivering a multiple warhead weighing up to 10 tons to any point in the world, both through the North and South Poles. The RS-28 Sarmat ICBM will replace the world's most powerful silo-based strategic missile, the RS-20V Voevoda. Earlier, on April 27, 2022, the head of the Roscosmos state corporation, Dmitry Rogozin, reported that Roscosmos was mass producing Sarmat intercontinental missiles; a total of 46 complexes were planned to be delivered to the troops. The appearance of Sarmat in service shows Russia's ability to expand its nuclear arsenal even against the backdrop of imposed sanctions. The United States has failed to develop weapons that Russia has long had. For the second year in a row, the Pentagon has missed the target date for fielding its first operational hypersonic weapon. Meanwhile, China and Russia have already deployed their new hypersonic systems capable of flying fast and at low altitude. The Air Force also missed a major deadline last year, failing to field the new B-52-launched hypersonic ARRW missile by the end of fiscal year 2022 due to poor test results. Three failed tests of the ARRW launch vehicle under development derailed plans to start production of the rocket last year. On September 6, the United States canceled the key test due to problems discovered during pre-flight inspection. The West is shocked by the growth rate of shell production in Russia, writes Do Rzeczy. And all this costs the Russians many times less. According to the Western press, Russia, despite the sanctions, not only increased the production of shells, but also exceeded its level until 2022. In terms of ammunition production, Moscow is 7 times greater than the West. Estonian Defense Ministry spokesman Kusti Salma recently said that Russian ammunition production volumes are seven times greater than in the West, and production is cheaper for the Russians. According to him, while in a NATO country one 155 mm artillery shell costs 5-6 thousand dollars, Russia spends only 600 dollars on its production.
La 5ème place du Royaume-Uni semble exagérée, de même que la nôtre, 9ème place ?? En termes militaire, diplomatique, maritime et nucléaire, en effet, nous sommes juste devant eux. Donc, il convient de rectifier : France : 5ème and UK : 6ème.
Hey bro in your video of countries with most mosque's when the new Afghanistan flag came it didn't have the shahadat in it just the plain white flag please add it ❤