Rusiian Military is superpower

//My opinion is that Russian military strenght is very overrated.My argument is that a country that barely is able to pay salaries for their service members can not be considered a military superpower.// Sources? Evidence? Anything? Also, Russia has 0-10% of a national GDP debt, while the US has a 50-60%. Let it be known that the US has trillions of dollars of debt.[1][2][3] //Russian annual military budget from all the world military spending has been only 3.9% compared to 46.5% of USA.// I'm not sure how to read this, but I think you are saying that the Russian military has spent less on it's military than the US. So, it is a bad thing that Russia is smart by not pushing a large chunk of its nation's money into military finances, thus saving them from trillions of dollars of debt, which the US has? Not sure how this is an argument against Russia. //Russian military is aging - it`s a Cold War relict rather than 21st century warfare capable fighting force.// Several spelling mistakes, I'd like to point out. Also, I'd love to see any evidence for this. //Despite annual arms trade shows were Russia keeps introducing new ``high tec`` weapons platforms actually 95% of those are for export and military actually receives only a fraction of it.// Please, source these claims. Also, if Russia is introducing all these amazing weapons, wouldn't it occur to them to keep a secret cache for themselves? I'm sure that whatever they sold was small in comparison to their hoarde. Also, they are the ones making the weapons, so they have a steady supply of them. //Another point is that military forces must be involved in war fighting because it`s the only way to check whether it is capable to complete assigned tasks.// ...So you are telling me war is the only way to test the military fighting strength? Really? Have you ever heard of simulations, and combat training? //Russia has been fighting dead end war in Chechnya with no visible end and results, but it is mainly like COIN war than war with aim to invade country with regular and defense capable army. Uh. I'm not sure if this is a coherent sentence or not. But, may I remind you of the five years or so the US have spent in Iran/Iraq doing absolutely nothing, while wasting million, possibly billions of dollars? //US military invaded Iraq in 21 days and crushed Taliban using just SF soldiers and Air support in months.// The Taliban was located in Afghanistan. Also, after setting up a democracy, the US proceeded to occupy Afghanistan for no apparent reason. I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with Russia, anyways. My opponent has used abominable grammar, and his arguments were semi legible. His arguments were incredibly shoddy, and easily refuted. He has not presented a shred of evidence why Russia shouldn't be considered a superpower. Now, for my contentions: 1)Rusiian. I was not aware there was a country, or even a city called Rusiia. So, the entire resolution is negated, because there was never a Rusiia to begin with. Resolution negated. 2) Semantical argument. My opponent failed to actually define his words, so therefore I will. I'm not going to do anything drastic, but since Rusiia isn't a place, I will define it. Rusiia - synonym for cheese. So now, my opponent has to prove that the cheese military was ever seriously and politically considered to be a superpower. 3)There was no actual resolution. If my opponent attempts to say that the title of the debate is not the resolution, then he has failed to post one, and everything else doesn't matter. He gives his opinion, and argues for Russia, but that is irrelevant since there was no resolution to begin with. Now, I will make a resolution. Resolution:QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM to the fifth is a intangible floor smacking face of dirt lilting sun. I am Con, and he is Pro. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://www.usdebtclock.org...[2] http://www.brillig.com...[3] I look forward to a great debate from my opponent.