In east germany, there's some place where you can ride in and drive BMPs, BRDMs and T-55s, I think.
Actually, owning a BMP shouldn't be so much of a problem. They're around in huge numbers, they are diesel powered and easy to repair. Any former east block nation should have dozens of them surplus. Shipping might be a bit expensive, though...
Re military spending, the russians have the advantage that their military procurement is a bit simpler than that of the US, especially since they went back to the soviet style "design bureau" system a few years ago.
On the other hand, they've produced a handy collection of prototypes and export models sofar, while their many of their forces still have the cold war equipment.
But building prototypes wasn't as dumb as it sounds. Aside from the bragging rights, it brought export revenue, extensive trial experience and it kept the knowledge and technology alive.
On the other hand, the main equipment of the US ground forces hasn't changed much either. All US vehicles in use today date back to the cold war era, except for the LAV and the Stryker, which are based on a foreign (Swiss) design.
The really ambitious replacement programs for the army have all been cut back or canceled, like Crusader, OICW, XM8, RAH-66, etc etc.
But it is the same in all western countries: No western nation has fielded a new MBT for 20 years now.
In fact, the only nations who did were the Chinese and the South Koreans.
There are a few modern APCs and IFVs, but most of the APCs tend to be tailor-made for the needs of peacekeeping.
Even most IFVs build today are designed with peacekeeping ops in mind, like the german Puma.
That said, ground war (as all war) is about tactics and training. The 1991 US military would've trashed the Iraquis even if they had been riding T-72s and BMPs and the other side Abrams.
All ground equipment around in large numbers anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the current german army
) is basically sound and well proven, it depends on who's using it.