Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[smjjames]

Not really, there would be plenty of other reasons for the US to let Russia have its way: weakness, unwillingness to commit significant troops...

*stares at sheb* (not actually angry)

Weakness? no. Unwillingness to commit significant troops due to war exhaustion? Yes.

[LordSlowpoke]

* LordSlowpoke chuckles

LIES USA STRONK

[Phmcw]

Not really, there would be plenty of other reasons for the US to let Russia have its way: weakness, unwillingness to commit significant troops...

They have the biggest conventional army in the world, backed by the second biggest conventional army in the world. So weakness isn't really a problem.
They do have quite a few good statemen, it's not like France were they don't have anyone decent, or Belgium were politicians aren't expecting to face anything bigger than mundane problems.

War would be exellent for the economy, especially since they could force reparations out of Russia afterward (read natural gas and oil). But as I said, Europe's fondness for equitable redistribution is the worst threath for US corporation's profitability, so maybe they feel things will work out better with a US-Russian bipolar world. Or rather US-Russian-Chinese multipolar world. No one in that bunch is going to care for worker's rights or want an equitable society.

[mainiac]

If Putin can destroy nato(as in making it meaningless) and Europe don't become more coehsive, he'll make the biggest diplomatic victory ever.

That would put any European contry under threath and would basically mean that Russia would be back to world power status.

That would also mean America fear an united Europe more than a Russia-dominated one.

Except that there are several European nations that singlehandedly are a match for Russia at this point.  If the Americans suddenly did a complete about face and abandoned the continent and the Germans or Brits or French decided to step up and protect nations in Eastern Europe then we'd be back to a pretty similar situation to right now.

Russia as a world power is just a fantasy left over from the Cold War.  They achieved that level of power projection by military spending about as much as all of Russia's energy revenues today.  And then on top of that you have all the foreign economic aid commitments.  Russia trying to wield that kind of influence would go broke in no time flat.

War would be exellent for the economy, especially since they could force reparations out of Russia afterward (read natural gas and oil).

So because the Russians have devolved into 19th century idiocy you recommend that the Americans follow suit?

[Sheb]

I meant weakness as in moral weakness, not in term of pure strength. Look at Obama's red lines in Syria... Also as in "unwillingness to take pain".

[Sergarr]

Germany wouldn't step up because they have a nation-wide complex against displaying any sort of military power.
France has barely enough ability to bomb third-world countries and is currently too busy bombing Islamic State.
England is currently undergoing major political crisis since the Scotland referendum.

You severely overestimate the wiliness of central European nations to go to war for some Eastern European countries.

USA is so warlike only because it had not experienced the devastation of world wars on its territory. Don't try to project American attitudes on war onto Europe.

[mainiac]

You severely overestimate the wiliness of central European nations to go to war for some Eastern European countries.

Not really what I was saying at all.

[mainiac]

I meant weakness as in moral weakness, not in term of pure strength. Look at Obama's red lines in Syria... Also as in "unwillingness to take pain".

Obama has shown an ability to think 12 months into the future economically which puts him about 12 months better in the delayed gratification department then the likes of Merkel or Putin.

[Phmcw]

A)Except that there are several European nations that singlehandedly are a match for Russia at this point.  If the Americans suddenly did a complete about face and abandoned the continent and the Germans or Brits or French decided to step up and protect nations in Eastern Europe then we'd be back to a pretty similar situation to right now.

B)Russia as a world power is just a fantasy left over from the Cold War.  They achieved that level of power projection by military spending about as much as all of Russia's energy revenues today.  And then on top of that you have all the foreign economic aid commitments.  Russia trying to wield that kind of influence would go broke in no time flat.

War would be exellent for the economy, especially since they could force reparations out of Russia afterward (read natural gas and oil).

C)So because the Russians have devolved into 19th century idiocy you recommend that the Americans follow suit?

A)No, not on paper. The number of plane, armors and men is readily available : Russia is stronger than any European countries, bu weaker than all of them.

B) They are going toe to toe with Nato, and aren't punished for it, so in my book, they are a world power.

C) Well it seems that this century think the 19th is the new future, but done cleverly, it could work out fine for both countries : American work payed in Russian gas. Think of it as a marchal plan 2.0 . Or they could go full retard and take the versaille treaty route.

[mainiac]

B) They are going toe to toe with Nato, and aren't punished for it, so in my book, they are a world power.

Iran confirmed for superpower.

People just dont seem to get that it's not fear of defeat that matters in the post 90s world.  It's the cost of action.  Russia could have invaded Ukraine at any time, it would just be prohibitively costly (and I'm not just talking direct financial costs).  The US could have tanks in Moscow in 6 weeks, it would just be prohibitively costly (and I'm not just talking direct financial costs).

A)No, not on paper. The number of plane, armors and men is readily available : Russia is stronger than any European countries, bu weaker than all of them.

Somebody didn't learn the lessons of the first and second gulf wars.

C) Well it seems that this century think the 19th is the new future, but done cleverly, it could work out fine for both countries : American work payed in Russian gas. Think of it as a marchal plan 2.0 . Or they could go full retard and take the versaille treaty route.

The actions of everybody but Russia would disagree with that assesment.  Why are you basing your world assessment on what a nation that wields about 3% of global influence thinks?

[Sergarr]

Fear of defeat doesn't matter? What?

So, Iraq doesn't fear the defeat from the Islamic State?

[miljan]

Well, like he's doing now in Eastern Ukraine. And I never said that there was no local support, after all he's also trying to get local support in the Baltic states (Like that speech by Russian officials a few days ago).

I know what Article 5 say, thank you. The fact is that 'armed attack' is, as far as I know, not clearly defined anywhere. However, an armed attack on a country's vessels inside Europe is clearly stated to be an armed attack.

And what make you think it won't work? What does Putin has to loose by being increasingly aggressive with the Baltics and trying to stir up trouble there? In the worst case, if the costs seems to high, he can just stop.

The things he is doing now in ukraine can not be possible in baltic states, especially in nato/eu states. To get support for russia minority you need first a big trigger. Something like what happened in ukraine when the pro russian president was thrown down, so a lot of rusian in ukraine where not happy with that, as a lot of them voted for him.  But that is also not enough as russia will need to actually send troops there in some form, and that will be impossible as the country is in nato/eu.

There is no clear definition  what armed attack is (well there is in a way https://ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com/tag/armed-attack/), but article 5 is implemented for countries to act on things where they are threaten from real attacks. Taking a boat and releasing it is not one of them as I said, as same as taking a potential spy near the border. Article 5 is for direct and indirect attacks from military/terrorist organization, and that was the point of it implementation after USA was attacked from terrorists. Saying that imprisonment of a boat is attack on nato (as you say they can use article 5 for it)is simply incorrect.

The thing that makes me think it will not work are several: The countries are in EU/NATO (only that will make it not work). I can tell you more, russia direct acting like that would be direct attack on EU and nato, and russia will lose a lot of allies and will be hit by real sanction. So putin has a lot to lose, and almost nothing to get from it, unlike what you say here.

While russia  is extremely powerful in its military, and is more powerful to most of countries 1 on 1 (after all it's in top 5 military powers in the world), it can not compare again EU. But it is very stupid to even talk about it, as much as talking about USA attacking russia/china.

[mainiac]

Fear of defeat doesn't matter? What?

Yes?  This isn't a complicated concept to understand.  The reason the US didn't invade Iran a while back wasn't fear of defeat by the Iranian military.  It was that the consequences would be negative.

[Sergarr]

Sergarr, I think he means 'fear of defeat when on the offensive'

On the defensive fear of defeat would be very real.

Then this is only valid for big countries.
Since, you know, small countries do not have the "I win" nuclear/chemical buttons.

[Phmcw]

A)Iran confirmed for superpower.
B)People just dont seem to get that it's not fear of defeat that matters in the post 90s world.  It's the cost of action.  Russia could have invaded Ukraine at any time, it would just be prohibitively costly (and I'm not just talking direct financial costs).  The US could have tanks in Moscow in 6 weeks, it would just be prohibitively costly (and I'm not just talking direct financial costs).
C)Somebody didn't learn the lessons of the first and second gulf wars.
D)The actions of everybody but Russia would disagree with that assesment.  Why are you basing your world assessment on what a nation that wields about 3% of global influence thinks?

A) Iran is being very cautious around nato and is never on the offensive. His strenght mostly come from Russian support anyway.

B) That's exactly what Putin is leveraging. Cost of action is a very faulty concept.

C) Irak's army was alway inferior by any metric to the coalition's forces.

D) The second gulf war? The war in afganistan? The second scramble for Africa? Destruction of worker's rights? Proxy war in Syria?