No country is going to do shit. Russia could roll through Poland tomorrow and we would condemn the fuck out of them. Biden will be pissed. France will tell them it's unacceptable. But we have Sterling to deal with and war sucks and we are against war. So no one does shit.
Disagree with that. Poland has been fucked over so badly in the last century that something would be done about it, by us and by NATO. Poland would be a HUGE line in a sand. It's far different than a Turkmenistan or a Moldova. It's a NATO country. The US would totally squander any remaining world superpower status by standing by while Poland gets annexed yet again by the Red Army.
We would strongly condemn it. Would tell them in the strongest terms possible to LEAVE. and then not do a fucking thing. We have zero will to fight that battle. Wouldn't happen. The nation would be outraged. It would have legs. And we would not do a god damn thing.
And yes, we would squander our superpower status. We are pussies now. Simple fact.
You have a point. Obama is a pussy. It's conceivable he would not act. What more could he do anyway, besides unfriending Putin on facebook. It would be very pathetic for Poland to be invaded by Russia and NATO to do nothing about it. If Obama refused to act, I do think other NATO countries such as the UK and France would take the lead and might do something about it. I really doubt they have the stomach to let another shitbag dictator do whatever he sees fit in Europe.
Obama doesn't have a say in the matter. His military cabinet and military council does, and they are not going to back down when the have signed a fucking treaty that says they will pledge support.
Problem is, many of his former satellite countries are now in NATO.
And after the Ukraine clusterfuck, those that aren't really, really want to become members.
Putin's charades are going to hurt Russia far more than it will help it. Now all of Europe wants to get off Russian gas even faster than they previously did, and when that happens, Russia is fucked.
Problem is, many of his former satellite countries are now in NATO.
And after the Ukraine clusterfuck, those that aren't really, really want to become members.
Putin's charades are going to hurt Russia far more than it will help it. Now all of Europe wants to get off Russian gas even faster than they previously did, and when that happens, Russia is fucked.
Disagree. The EU is a cluster economically. They won't do shit. Militarily or economically. Their actions will be "strongly condemned" and Obama will tell him to get out of the satellites in "the strongest language possibly" but no one is going to do a fucking thing.
Uhhh, what?
Russia isn't going any further. Most of the satellites worth a shit are in NATO.
If Russia does move against NATO, Europe is more than capable of kicking Russia's ass.
Europe does rely heavily on Russian gas, but Norway and Scandinavia are making plans to build new pipelines. None of Europe likes using Russian gas, they are trying to come up with any alternatives they can to Gazprom fuel.
Napoleon and Hitler both believed that too.
Toppy,
In general I agree with most of your post.
HOWEVER, I think that there's a MASSIVE difference between the Russia that Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade BY LAND and today's modern technology that will make the challenges that both Napoleon and Hitler faced (notably harsh winters, trying to overtake Russia by land, and the vast number of Russia people).
Ultimately the biggest military advantages that Russia have had have been the weather, the number of people, and their nuclear ability. At least 2 of those 3 are more or less neutralized now.
How the fuck have any of the 3 advantages that you mention been neutralized, pray tell? Technology can only go so far. It means a little less than jack shit with a country the size of Russia that encompasses 9 time zones. You must be one of the fucktards that thinks an airforce alone is sufficient to do the job. The winters there haven't gotten any softer and would still play a major role in any ground combat. And of course they have plenty of people.
You're naive if you think that the capabilities of technology have not changed how wars are fought today than they were were going back to WWII (70 years ago) or back to when Napoleon tried to invade Russia (200 years ago).
Military actions today are much more in/out operations that are tied to specific, targeted objectives.
You aren't going to have battles anymore where there are over a million people on both sides fighting in more or less hand to hand combat (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) - those tactics are quite frankly outdated.
What are the advantages that Russia have historically had against military attacks on their land:
1) Weather - all attacks need to be completed in a short-term (from a massive military perspective) to avoid potentially harsh winters. In the two main attempts to invade Russia, not only has the weather been harsh on the ability of troops to advance, but harsh from the standpoint of providing reinforcements, supplies, etc. Technology is in a far better position today than it was at either prior point in history to at least combat the supply/reinforcement variables.
2) Quantity of People - there's no question that this still remains an issue. However, where this has historically helped Russia is that the battles have been fought in a manner that allows them to maximize the advantage. Battles are rarely fought today in such large numbers. IF there is a large congregation of troops today, you're far more likely to see the use of drones, explosives, etc. to minimize casualties on the attacking side. You won't see fighting on a line and everybody basically taking shots with a rifle at the other line.
3) Nuclear Weapons - this is the biggest question mark in my mind because you don't really know what is sitting in a back pocket somewhere. What you do know is that we have more at our disposal and if we need to use them, could use them at a snap of a finger.
Russia may still have some military advantages against most of the European countries in isolation, but probably not in total. When bringing the US into the equation, they definitely are way behind. The only way that they could even make it a fair fight would be to find some kind of way to get China on their side. But given the explosive growth that China is having which is spurred predominately through US and EU interaction, they'd be foolish to back Russia.
Problem is, many of his former satellite countries are now in NATO.
And after the Ukraine clusterfuck, those that aren't really, really want to become members.
Putin's charades are going to hurt Russia far more than it will help it. Now all of Europe wants to get off Russian gas even faster than they previously did, and when that happens, Russia is fucked.
Problem is, many of his former satellite countries are now in NATO.
And after the Ukraine clusterfuck, those that aren't really, really want to become members.
Putin's charades are going to hurt Russia far more than it will help it. Now all of Europe wants to get off Russian gas even faster than they previously did, and when that happens, Russia is fucked.
Disagree. The EU is a cluster economically. They won't do shit. Militarily or economically. Their actions will be "strongly condemned" and Obama will tell him to get out of the satellites in "the strongest language possibly" but no one is going to do a fucking thing.
Uhhh, what?
Russia isn't going any further. Most of the satellites worth a shit are in NATO.
If Russia does move against NATO, Europe is more than capable of kicking Russia's ass.
Europe does rely heavily on Russian gas, but Norway and Scandinavia are making plans to build new pipelines. None of Europe likes using Russian gas, they are trying to come up with any alternatives they can to Gazprom fuel.
Napoleon and Hitler both believed that too.
Toppy,
In general I agree with most of your post.
HOWEVER, I think that there's a MASSIVE difference between the Russia that Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade BY LAND and today's modern technology that will make the challenges that both Napoleon and Hitler faced (notably harsh winters, trying to overtake Russia by land, and the vast number of Russia people).
Ultimately the biggest military advantages that Russia have had have been the weather, the number of people, and their nuclear ability. At least 2 of those 3 are more or less neutralized now.
How the fuck have any of the 3 advantages that you mention been neutralized, pray tell? Technology can only go so far. It means a little less than jack shit with a country the size of Russia that encompasses 9 time zones. You must be one of the fucktards that thinks an airforce alone is sufficient to do the job. The winters there haven't gotten any softer and would still play a major role in any ground combat. And of course they have plenty of people.
You're naive if you think that the capabilities of technology have not changed how wars are fought today than they were were going back to WWII (70 years ago) or back to when Napoleon tried to invade Russia (200 years ago).
Military actions today are much more in/out operations that are tied to specific, targeted objectives.
You aren't going to have battles anymore where there are over a million people on both sides fighting in more or less hand to hand combat (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) - those tactics are quite frankly outdated.
What are the advantages that Russia have historically had against military attacks on their land:
1) Weather - all attacks need to be completed in a short-term (from a massive military perspective) to avoid potentially harsh winters. In the two main attempts to invade Russia, not only has the weather been harsh on the ability of troops to advance, but harsh from the standpoint of providing reinforcements, supplies, etc. Technology is in a far better position today than it was at either prior point in history to at least combat the supply/reinforcement variables.
2) Quantity of People - there's no question that this still remains an issue. However, where this has historically helped Russia is that the battles have been fought in a manner that allows them to maximize the advantage. Battles are rarely fought today in such large numbers. IF there is a large congregation of troops today, you're far more likely to see the use of drones, explosives, etc. to minimize casualties on the attacking side. You won't see fighting on a line and everybody basically taking shots with a rifle at the other line.
3) Nuclear Weapons - this is the biggest question mark in my mind because you don't really know what is sitting in a back pocket somewhere. What you do know is that we have more at our disposal and if we need to use them, could use them at a snap of a finger.
Russia may still have some military advantages against most of the European countries in isolation, but probably not in total. When bringing the US into the equation, they definitely are way behind. The only way that they could even make it a fair fight would be to find some kind of way to get China on their side. But given the explosive growth that China is having which is spurred predominately through US and EU interaction, they'd be foolish to back Russia.
I think Kazakhstan is also going to have some rebel problems in about 5-8 more years... There will be some abuse by Kazakhs upon poor and exploited Russians, that Russia will not be able to just turn a blind eye to. Its geographic size is too much of a threat to Russia as well.
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls. Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium. All other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool. It’s length thirty meter and width six meter. Filtration system a marvel to behold. It removes 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place. From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown. Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan. They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in the world. We invented toffee and trouser belt. Kazakhstan’s prostitutes cleanest in the region. Except of course Turkmenistan’s
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place. From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown. Come grasp the mighty penis of our leader. From junction with the testes to tip of its face
Problem is, many of his former satellite countries are now in NATO.
And after the Ukraine clusterfuck, those that aren't really, really want to become members.
Putin's charades are going to hurt Russia far more than it will help it. Now all of Europe wants to get off Russian gas even faster than they previously did, and when that happens, Russia is fucked.
Disagree. The EU is a cluster economically. They won't do shit. Militarily or economically. Their actions will be "strongly condemned" and Obama will tell him to get out of the satellites in "the strongest language possibly" but no one is going to do a fucking thing.
Comments
Military actions today are much more in/out operations that are tied to specific, targeted objectives.
You aren't going to have battles anymore where there are over a million people on both sides fighting in more or less hand to hand combat (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) - those tactics are quite frankly outdated.
What are the advantages that Russia have historically had against military attacks on their land:
1) Weather - all attacks need to be completed in a short-term (from a massive military perspective) to avoid potentially harsh winters. In the two main attempts to invade Russia, not only has the weather been harsh on the ability of troops to advance, but harsh from the standpoint of providing reinforcements, supplies, etc. Technology is in a far better position today than it was at either prior point in history to at least combat the supply/reinforcement variables.
2) Quantity of People - there's no question that this still remains an issue. However, where this has historically helped Russia is that the battles have been fought in a manner that allows them to maximize the advantage. Battles are rarely fought today in such large numbers. IF there is a large congregation of troops today, you're far more likely to see the use of drones, explosives, etc. to minimize casualties on the attacking side. You won't see fighting on a line and everybody basically taking shots with a rifle at the other line.
3) Nuclear Weapons - this is the biggest question mark in my mind because you don't really know what is sitting in a back pocket somewhere. What you do know is that we have more at our disposal and if we need to use them, could use them at a snap of a finger.
Russia may still have some military advantages against most of the European countries in isolation, but probably not in total. When bringing the US into the equation, they definitely are way behind. The only way that they could even make it a fair fight would be to find some kind of way to get China on their side. But given the explosive growth that China is having which is spurred predominately through US and EU interaction, they'd be foolish to back Russia.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
All other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
It’s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It removes 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in the world.
We invented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstan’s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course Turkmenistan’s
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the mighty penis of our leader.
From junction with the testes to tip of its face
Unsure what next year has in mind