It is not only a saying in Germany, it is in principle also the "Categorical Imperative" of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and it is also his philosophical basis:
I certainly mention this simply to show what a typical German "smart-ass" I am.
And just to stay in this behaviour, I feel the need to mention this:
Several remarks from a former German "professional student" with some studies in politics and history:
The big advantage and disadvantage at the same time of Russia and the former Soviet Union is its sheer huge size. Already 200 years ago, there was a Russian saying: "The heaven is high and the Tsar is far away!" Which means that the Russian cities and settlements often were as far away from the next one as different national capitals in Western Europe. Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there was not really a cultural exchange between these centers of the Russian culture, it was the power of the Russian Tsar's military army which connected the different centers of Russia and their modernization during the reign of Peter the Great. It was his will and sometimes cruelty which was responsible for the modernization of Russia according to the example of successful Western states like the German Prussia, the Netherlands and Great Britain.
In the Russian military, you can find until today German words which are forgotten in Germany but they still exist in Russia like "Feldscher", which is derived from "field" and "Scherer" (= "Cutter with big scissors"). In Prussia, this "Feldsch(e)er" was the military doctor who was also responsible for the amputations of hurt soldiers. This word does no more exist in Germany but in Russia, it is still the word for a military doctor.
So, the only power which always kept together such a giant (and also multi-national "empire" until today) state like Russia is its military force and power, nothing else.
Russia's existence and influence is built only on its military and therefore, every Russian government will ever prefer the modernization of its military instead of the modernization of its society.
From the Kremlin's historical standpoint, I could even understand this behaviour, but it is still the same behaviour of the former German Prussian kings: Wars made Prussia to one of the greatest historical powers in Europe, but in the long run, these military expenditures have cost the social welfare of the state and left no money over for the development of a Prussian civil cociety. Prussia was the German equivalent of a modern Sparta and up to 1914, almost every expenditure in this Prussian state was justified by the needs of the military. Yes, they had the best weapons of this time in Europe but they also had the most enemies and even worse: The Prussian governments were proud of having many enemies: "Viel Feind', viel Ehr'!" (= Many Enemies, Much Honor!) We know how this ended between 1914 and 1917.
And no, these German Prussians did not "always lose on the battlefields", they simply were too proud of too many enemies.
There were German military commanders in WW I and WW II and their tricks together with their weapons made them famous. There was one legendary German commander who helped the Austrians in a very successful battle in the mountains during the ...
... and he was even successful 24 years late in the deserts of North Africa: General Erwin Rommel (the "Desert Fox" was in WW I rather a "Mountain Fox"!) but the Germans had the same problem as the Russians had at the same time: An insane dictator who was suspicious of all who could become dangerous for his government. The killing of Russian commanders before WW II by their own commander-in-chief Stalin was the main reason for the incredible losses of the Soviet Army and the racist madness of Hitler was the reason for the forced suicide of German commanders like Rommel. Neither the Russians nor the Germans were ever a people who wanted to go on wars with each other. The really responsible ones were their perverted governments in a world in which everything was built on military power.