Jump to content

Russia, US, the West vs ??? WWIII! (Part I)


Recommended Posts

 

 

Trouble is that I cannot predict how much economic damage Russia is willing to take, so I do not know how strong the cards are that the West is holding.

 

Media here (western europe) is trying to imply the Russian economy is hit hard, which is not what they were implying before(iirc the sanctions were targeting only individuals directly involved in the annexation)

 

When it comes down to it, Russia is huge and can get almost anything it wants in the country itself, unlike the Ukraïne.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For someone slagging off the western style media in the USA you seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for a falsely-named woo-peddling "informercialized" rag. Pravda.ru is a bottom-feeding tabloid

i am glad to hear that. Unfortunately, when governments decide that a conflict has arrived, people fight, not governments.

Well Russia's actions could well be described as a breach of the Budapest Memorandum of Nuclear Assurances signed by the United States in 1994. The USA (along with the other Nuclear powers - Russia e

Ridiculous questions. Russians did not war with Ukraine when it was strong. What about now?Only sanctions constrain Russia.

 

 

I think more than sanctions constrain Russia, if my questions are ridiculous it shouldn't be too difficult to show me why...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

if my questions are ridiculous it shouldn't be too difficult to show me why...

War doesn't need a vote of simple people. Russia has many thieves therefore we have government of thieves. They have stolen Crimea. Our people approve it and even approve any war with any 'enemy'. Our people do not think of consequences when they don't feel them. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

War doesn't need a vote of simple people. Russia has many thieves therefore we have government of thieves. They have stolen Crimea. Our people approve it and even approve any war with any 'enemy'. Our people do not think of consequences when they don't feel them. :P

 

 

I do think of the consequences and why do you consider Crimea stolen? War between the US and Russia would have dire consequences no matter who won, if a winner is even possible..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russians think that Americans should be afraid of consequences.Therefore Russia expands .

 

 

Oh horse feathers, what Russians don't bleed? Don't insult your self by trying to be all that, both countries would bleed horribly if it came to direct war. Like two men standing knee deep in gasoline, one has three matches the the other has five...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh horse feathers, what Russians don't bleed? Don't insult your self by trying to be all that, both countries would bleed horribly if it came to direct war. Like two men standing knee deep in gasoline, one has three matches the the other has five...

Well.Our TV says that our rockets are better than american rockets therefore in local military conflict on Black sea we will be winners. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1/ ...backs off. No chance.

 

Care to explain?

Note that I wasn't talking about the Crimea anymore, but about Eastern Ukraine. Since they haven't invaded yet, and Ukrainian military influence still dominates that area, why is backing off no option for Russia?

 

2/ ...or even invades. You mean invasion is not what they've done thus far?

 

As I said above, I am no longer talking about the Crimea. That's a done deal. As far as I know, in Eastern Ukraine, they may be fueling the fire, but their main army has not crossed the border, and the streets are mostly patrolled by Ukrainian forces. Sure, Russian minded people occupy buildings, and perhaps even parts of a town, but they don't control the whole area. So, no, they haven't invaded.

 

If you wish to include the Crimea, please say so. When you quoted my post, it seemed that you responded to what I mentioned.

 

3/ ...west takes military action... Again, no chance.

 

As I see it Russia have played a blinder. Spotted a political vacuum, walked into Crimea with troops masquerading as locals. Then claim it's the will of the people to be with Russia - signs documents to annex Crimea to Russia. And now a similar tactic in east Ukraine - with troops masquerading as before. Leaving the West protesting and running about like chickens with no heads.

 

In view of the current state of affairs I can't see Russia stopping. Salami tactic being played to perfection.

 

Ukraine wanted a change of government and enacted a non-democratic tactic to achieve such. And what have they ended up with? Think a Chinese proverb sums it up quite well: be careful what you wish for.

 

They have troops running around in Eastern Ukraine, but I am not sure that it's a done deal like in the Crimea. If it was a done deal, Russian troops and tanks would be openly patrolling the streets there, and Putin would be making all kinds of official statements about it. Since none of that is happening, obviously, the Russians are hesitating for some reason. External pressure (from Western countries) is the only reason I can see. That means scenario #1 (Russia calls it off) is still an option for Russia.

 

In my list of scenarios, both #2 and #3 involve military actions by Russia. If scenario #1 was discarded by Putin, then logically the tanks would be rolling now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Care to explain?

You mean after they've infiltrated (because as far as I can see from reports, that's what they've done in Ukraine) they'll then retreat at a later time? For what possible reason would they do that? As I see it they've no reason whatsoever to retreat - in fact every advantage to remain or even infiltrate farther.

 

As I said above, I am no longer talking about the Crimea.

No longer talking about Crimea! That's interesting. They walk in and then we say a done deal. And as far as I can see they're walking in to eastern Ukraine at the moment. And if by chance they're reading your comments, they'll be the green light to walk farther in Ukraine to make that a done deal.

 

They have troops running around in Eastern Ukraine, but I am not sure that it's a done deal like in the Crimea. If it was a done deal, Russian troops and tanks would be openly patrolling the streets there, and Putin would be making all kinds of official statements about it. Since none of that is happening, obviously, the Russians are hesitating for some reason. External pressure (from Western countries) is the only reason I can see. That means scenario #1 (Russia calls it off) is still an option for Russia.

They're doubtless not making official statements and patrolling in tanks only because it's not yet a done deal (as you casually express it).

 

And as for calling it off, why on earth should they do that? Sanctions one might say - just you try it and see what happens, I'd suggest the Russians might say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Delbert, you almost make it sound like we disagree with each other. But after reading your posts a few times, I get the feeling that it's mostly a matter of disagreeing on the choice of words, rather than on the big picture or the analysis.

In the meantime, the IMF says Russian economy is going into recession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Delbert, you almost make it sound like we disagree with each other. But after reading your posts a few times, I get the feeling that it's mostly a matter of disagreeing on the choice of words, rather than on the big picture or the analysis.

I'm sure we are. I'm just trying to look at it dispassionately. And just in case there's a misunderstanding, I hope it goes without saying I'm certainly no lover of the tactics apparently employed by the Russians. But looking at it remotely, I have to say they've played a blinder. Jumped in at a moment of weakness and out manoeuvred and out foxed everyone - and still doing it. As before, Aristotle identified one of the requirements for peace. If we forget such basics or think they are not necessary or irrelevant in our so called modern world, we do so at our peril.

 

You point out information that Russia is apparently going into recession. Well, as previously, I think history tells us economic stress can or is one reason for the initiation of armed conflict. And sanctions might just add coals to the fire of their determination or enthusiasm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.Our TV says that our rockets are better than american rockets therefore in local military conflict on Black sea we will be winners. ;)

 

 

The TV says? OH wow it must be true..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well.Our TV says that our rockets are better than american rockets therefore in local military conflict on Black sea we will be winners. ;)

The TV says? OH wow it must be true..

 

It is interesting to hear the other side's propaganda though. I hope you think similarly about the trash that is shown on your own tv.

 

Looking at the Dutch tv, the news and opinions about the Ukraine are very one-sided, with a nearly 100% Western view. Add to that the Discovery channel's "documentaries" about the US military, and I think we can agree that both sides probably employ the same propaganda tricks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why did we not just go in and remove the nuclear threat when we had the chance?

politics.

i often imagine an anti aircraft strategy overwhelmed by swarms of small drones with syringes. i imagine that swarming technology as it is already being implimented in larger drone teams will be the next nuclear deterent. i find it amusing that old shcool russion radar can detect modern stealth planes. this however is not a problem when you look at the greater strategies that can be employed. this lack of public insight is what downed the f-22. it was not designed for the dog fight because a better strategy was picked. our government cannot tell us why it is investing in such things as on the surface it looks foolish but to explain why is to give up crucial information on tactics. to me it speaks volumes. now if we can just get the technology to be a bit more reliable in production...

 

what is the future of war? swarm technology. massive numbers of very small drones that can be released in the field by individual units to neutralize targets before engagement. i imagine an organized set of special operations teams being dopped into strategic positions only to observe and then neutralize the communications chain of command and a timely additional release of drones to neutralize nuclear objectives. a large coordinated number of one and two man units meant to get strategic information and then recieve the order to irradicate targets by realeasing the contents of a backpack. total domination to any percievable threat in the future.

 

does america have any black projects involving such things? we have several independant groups that are doing this very thing. the only question is whether the government is put in a political position to produce these items.

 

my guess is that Putkin should not poke the goose so hard. we are good at war and well versed at it. remember, we police the world. and that's something you wont be able to shake a stick at if it happens with drone tech. remember we already produce swarm technology in our current equipment.

 

in a nutshell, you haven't seen drones yet.

Edited by davidivad
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is interesting to hear the other side's propaganda though. I hope you think similarly about the trash that is shown on your own tv.

 

Looking at the Dutch tv, the news and opinions about the Ukraine are very one-sided, with a nearly 100% Western view. Add to that the Discovery channel's "documentaries" about the US military, and I think we can agree that both sides probably employ the same propaganda tricks.

 

 

Umm you didn't get the whole "if it's on TV it must be true" part?

Do you think the propaganda doesn't work ?

 

 

Do you think it's a valid way to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a foe? The general population here is easily fooled some of the time but few have any silly ideas like our nuclear bombs are better than yours...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you think it's a valid way to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a foe?

Where was I saying that? I say that the propaganda works and create things which will cause war, sanctions can destroy the things.Your government isn't so naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DimaMazin, Moontanman, I don't think there is any disagreement among us. I deliberately chose to ignore your joke, and instead I used it to make a serious remark. And reading both your posts and responses to each other, I think you both realize the power and effect of the propaganda on both sides. Let's not fight.

 

davidivad, Putin is not a fool, and he only wants to restore the sphere of influence in the direct neighborhood (essentially the former soviet area). This whole conflict will NOT end in a full-scale war between the USA and Russia. (And if it does, we're all screwed anyway, so who cares about drones or swarms). It worries me that on both the Russian and American side, there are groups that actually seem eager to go to a full-scale war (or who are at least talking about it, as if it could start soon).

Link to post
Share on other sites

DimaMazin, Moontanman, I don't think there is any disagreement among us. I deliberately chose to ignore your joke, and instead I used it to make a serious remark. And reading both your posts and responses to each other, I think you both realize the power and effect of the propaganda on both sides. Let's not fight.

 

davidivad, Putin is not a fool, and he only wants to restore the sphere of influence in the direct neighborhood (essentially the former soviet area). This whole conflict will NOT end in a full-scale war between the USA and Russia. (And if it does, we're all screwed anyway, so who cares about drones or swarms). It worries me that on both the Russian and American side, there are groups that actually seem eager to go to a full-scale war (or who are at least talking about it, as if it could start soon).

 

 

What bothers me is the idea that Russia somehow owns those countries it conquered, it would be like the usa taking over parts of canada or mexico, it makes no sense to me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

why did we not just go in and remove the nuclear threat when we had the chance?

politics.

 

The only country that does not have nukes in this conflict is the Ukraïne,

and if they did try to (military) remove the Russians from their soil, the Russians could simply invade the rest of the Ukraïne with no fear of repercussions, so they didn't try that.

(aka this conflict was possibly worse because of the lack of deterrent/nukes)

 

I suppose you were talking about the Russian nukes though, but i don't think the USA ever had a serious opportunity to remove them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only country that does not have nukes in this conflict is the Ukraïne,

and if they did try to (military) remove the Russians from their soil, the Russians could simply invade the rest of the Ukraïne with no fear of repercussions, so they didn't try that.

(aka this conflict was possibly worse because of the lack of deterrent/nukes)

 

I suppose you were talking about the Russian nukes though, but i don't think the USA ever had a serious opportunity to remove them.

 

well, while it may have been a pain in the butt, i think we should have done a bit more directly after the dissolution of the USSR. While it would have been quite a task to remove all of them, i think we should have used the support of other countries to remove at least some of the potential threat to the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What bothers me is the idea that Russia somehow owns those countries it conquered, it would be like the usa taking over parts of canada or mexico, it makes no sense to me...

Russia cannot independently develop, therefore it searches for a successful military conflict to increase popularity of its government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What bothers me is the idea that Russia somehow owns those countries it conquered, it would be like the usa taking over parts of canada or mexico, it makes no sense to me...

 

No, Russia has a sphere of influence. So does the USA. Russia wishes to restore its sphere of influence, while the US has been actively chipping away at it, absorbing parts into its own influence, such as the Baltic, East and Central Europe, Georgia and more recently Ukraine. The behavior of the US (and its allies) pushes Russia into a defensive aggression. The situation where Russia acts as an aggressor is a logical development from the last decade. The question is now how Russia plays its cards. Will it use military force, or its covert ops (as it is doing now) or only political? It seems that Russia is playing a relatively safe game, without direct military involvement (other than the covery ops its does in Ukraine, with some 'green men' without official insignia).

 

Anyway, the situation that Russia tries to create is no different from what the USA already created: The US have lots of influence in Europe. For example, they have a military presence in Europe. That is no occupation force, and it does not mean that the USA owns Europe. But it does show that the US have influence in Europe. Obviously, the opinion of Washington also matters in other, non-military issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.