like I explained in my previous comment, Kerry, under presidential system, citizens do not involve in day to day affairs.They only have indirect power over the president, which can be practiced in a form of re-elections, emergency elections and referendums. Therefore new government of ukraine, is not legit, simply because opposition seized power in a way, which is not supported by presidential system. So eat is Kerry.

Assuming that finances are not a problem, each month I would see myself gradually advancing thru a set of a countries, with pre-set commodities and legal allowances in each of those nations.

...or I would go to a marss

Ok, easy now. Lets forget propaganda of media for a second and look on facts and order of events. People of Ukraine voted a president, who was pro-russian and this was known before his administration. Now this legal, official president, made a decision, to choose Russia instead of EU. Let me remind you, that under presidential system, citizens have only indirect power over the president, which can be practiced in a form of re-elections, emergency elections and referendums. Key factor is, that under presidential system, citizens do not involve in day to day affairs, and this said president can be removed from a post only with democratic elections. After decision of not joining EU was made, half of population started riots, which are illegal. Again, I will remind you that under presidential system, citizens do not involve in day to day affairs. Since ukrainians themselves made a choice of using presidential system as their system, they must now, according to their own laws, re-elect new president which will make decisions majority supports. But before doing this, they attacked government building where several police officers died. This makes them, by definition, a rabels, and therefore new government is simply not legit, regardless of details, because it seized power in way presidential system does not support. Media and propaganda, in this case is used as political tools, by the west, mainly by US.

@Master_Live: Its hard question. China/Russ have 4 times more troops. US have 3 times higher defense budget. In general, tech in Rus costs 2-4 times less than tech in US (rifles, tanks etc. Even tho US tech is little bit better, its still better. Russ owns half of worlds nukes. US are allies with half of world. Decide yourself...

Ok so

Total military personel (active + reserve): USA 2.2 MIL. ; RUS 3.1 MIL. ; CN 5 MILL

Total military budget (per year): USA 600 BILL. ; RUS 76 BILL. ; CN 126 BILL

So military budget of US is 3 times higher than russias and chinas combined

but russia and china have 4 times more troops.

Also consider real life applications. ak47 is 4 times cheaper than m16, same goes for tanks. Those little resources which are actually needed for military production, are traded for using russias many natural resources (like gas). So realistically, even tho russia alone spend 8 times less on military than US, everything is much more cheaper and what isnt, is simply traded for. Since natural resources of USA doesnt come close to those of russia, US is left with few options for trade, so it must spend money instead.

So if USA have only 3 times the budget of Russia and China, while rifles and tanks in Russia are 2-4 times cheaper, together with massive russian natural resource exchange for military production purposes, it costs in total around 4 times more to "suit up" soldier in US, than in rus.

Now add to this conclusion the fact that China with Russia together have 4 times more troops (which, like stated before, individually cost 4 times less). So 1 american soldier must kill 4 enemy soldiers, and suiting up those 4 enemy soldiers cost the same as suiting up single american soldier.

Also many people don't understand the difference between new military technology development in US and Russia. In US, majority of field is dominated by private companies developing new technology prototypes using their own resources. After prototype's developed, it is offered to different US military branches and if accepted and tested, a contract is signed for a specific amount. We all have seen a glimpses of modern tech models US have. Per year US government releases about a dozen or more statements about different upgrades and models they're buying. This is not to say that US government doesn't develop secret weapons. It does, but majority of field is filled with this type of action.

In Russia its different. Majority of a field in military development is dominated by government scientists, working on a contract all year around, receiving monthly wages. The benefits of this type of system are obvious.

1. Private companies in US must fund their initial prototype and its development themselves, while in Russia scientists can focus on actual product instead of worrying about starting capital.

2. Private companies in US receive money only when prototype is bought, so they are interested in creating working prototype as fast as possible, while in Russia, gov. scientists can take their time and again, focus on a prototype, since they receive money on a monthly base.

3. Since majority of tech. dev. in US, is made by private companies, they are interested in profit. They must lower the price of a prototype by using cheaper materials so they would out-compete other companies and profit by selling their prototype. In russia, this problem doesnt exist. Gov. scientists dont need to make any compromises on materials just to get prototype to cost less. Since they receive monthly wages, they dont need to out-compete anyone, therefore prototypes are made not for profit, but for efficiency. This is not to say US doesnt employ scientists. It does, but, in comparison, on much smaller scale than russia.

As far as quality of equipment goes, it's almost as good as equipment used in US (only 4 times cheaper). If you compare stats of a standard issue equipment of both countries, you will see that, in general, american equipment is only little bit better, while costs 4 times more. To get that15% or so advantage the costs are doubled. Same goes for most of technology used in US military. All military technology currently used world wide is based on same,earths previous historical prototypes. There are little place for national-diversity in design of currently used tech. So its not like in games, where huge difference can be observed when comparing 2 different pieces of modern tech from different countries. I am saying this as physicist. All rifles are basically based on few universal models, which gets modified by nation to nation, therefore base difference is small.

And my last point- After soviet union broke down, russia claimed all its debt, foreign lands and all the nuke soviet union produced. On top of that, when US started to build anti-missile net around Russia, Putin simply tripled production of nukes, as a counter measures. As of now, Russia alone owns more than a half of all the nukes there is on globe. If you add china and north korea to formula, US is facing huge majority of all the nuclear technology produced currently on earth. Reason for this, is again, Russias natural resources. Most of materials russia needs are produced/gathered in russia, like uranium. Nuke technology is expensive and requires specific materials. USA have no where near as much natural resources as russia, therefore US can obtain required materials mostly by spending actual money.

In this article, I talked mostly about positive aspects of russian military and negative aspects of US military. This is not to say, that russia dont have any negative aspects or that US dont have positive ones. I also did not include psychological analysis of average soldier and their leaders in both armies. American soldier is more likely to come from a good background, from un-abusive financially stable family and with good record. Russian soldier is more likely to be bullied from childhood, having used drugs at some point or another, being involved in criminal activity in the past, and generally coming from abusive, poor families, therefore learning to survive alone from early childhood. As far as psychology is concerned, people like that are more likely to perform better. I could go on and on, because this is such a vast topic but I will stop now. Thank you.