Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:51 am

American foreign policy with regards to Russia: Say some fancy words, do nothing.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:15 am

Isn't that because we're caught between two treaties (the one with Ukraine and the one with the UN)? Or maybe because Russia hasn't done anything actionable yet? Last I heard they were "invading" without firing a shot.

It seems like Crimea really wants to be a part of Russia. And from some of the information posted here, I can totally see why. So why not just nose out and LET them? I'm pretty sure there was no uproar when any of the American protectorates decided they wanted to be a part of the US. Granted, none of them were in the middle of a coup d'etat at the time either, so the situation is a little bit different.

Essentially, my take on the situation is this:
Ukraine explodes in a hail of gunfire and revolution.
Crimea responds by saying "no, no thank you. In fact, fuck you guys, I'm gonna move in with the neighbors, who I'm actually related to by blood."
Ukraine responds by getting all butthurt and thinking that Russia is invading them?

This whole situation is just fucked up. Everybody who isn't primary to the situation needs to just shut the fuck up and let it play out, I think. Any "help" from bystanders is just doomed to make the situation worse.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:49 am

I agree to a degree.

You missed the complicated part of the situation; the Russia/NATO standoff (cold war, whatever you want to call it) - around here what is the worrying part of the news is teh discussion of the baltic countries (who are part of NATO), and who get very worried because of the rhetoric and stance of Putin and Russia.

The big question really is; how much of Putins rhetoric is just that, and how much does he, himself, believe (ie, how mad is Putin, and is he sane enough to just play out over Ukraine?)

Somehow, even though its been held up by talking heads here to be a cause, I'm glad that Ukraine didn't get to keep any nuclear weapons - I'm not actually worried that the pro-west Kiev powerholders would use them, but some people, like this selfproclaimed mayor in the east, seem quite unbalanced enough to not only threaten with usage, but do it, for lack of geopolitical understanding.

(Detention of OSCE observers, claiming they are spies, because they are military personel is so absurd that this guy must have lived under a rock, or been deliberatly misled as to what the OSCE is)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:40 am

I don't quite understand why Putin is considered insane by same for what he is doing or why he would be considered insane if he attacked NATO.

Mind you I am not saying it would ultimately be beneficial for him, but it could be a calculated move on his part. Say for instance he attacks the Baltic States to reunite them with the Glorious Motherland, well NATO claims that he could take those countries over in a matter of days. Militarly NATO barely has any real forces there: What a few dozen F-16s, a couple of APCs and some few thousand troops? Laughable. Russian T-90s, aircraft and their dozens if not hundreds of S-300 and S-400 missile launchers would annihilate NATO there, hell I bet they could even take a sizable part of Poland before they were stopped.

Here's the thing though, it might just destroy NATO as well, politically at least. Imagine if Russia does attack NATO after invading Ukraine in response to wide ranging economic sanctions by the west, do you think every NATO member would rush to the east to abide by the terms of the NATO treaty? I have some huge doubts considering the economic situation of many countries in NATO at the moment and even if all political leaders did it there would be riots in Greece, Turkey, Spain, Italy to name a few countries. There would even be protests in France and the United Kingdom as well as Germany.

If a single major NATO country refuse to go to war, say Germany where a very large segment of the population do not want their nation to get involved in wars, or Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey then the question will be asked: Just what is NATO worth politically if members states don't care to defend one another? It probably wouldn't kill NATO but it would damage it's political standing by a substantial amount.

From Putin's pov that might just be worth it.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:38 pm

I find this whole crisis to be vastly overblown.

If Russia wants to bite chunks of Ukraine, there's very little America or NATO can do to stop him. We're at an incredible strategic disadvantage if we try to fight in that region.

And concern from NATO allies that "they are next" is silly. Russia won't attack NATO states. They will bite off places like Crimea because they are not NATO, i.e. because they CAN. The moment they DID attack a NATO state would be the moment they give a clear-cut, unambiguous pretext for intervention, and most of the western world will be treaty-bound to retaliate.

If countries who are not NATO are scared of being annexed by Russia, that sounds suspiciously like their problem. If they don't want it to happen, they should have joined NATO.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:56 pm

...most of the western world will be treaty-bound to retaliate.


Will they though? I have my doubts as to how much aid the western world would give if Russia invaded Romania right now.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:27 pm

Io.Draco wrote:
...most of the western world will be treaty-bound to retaliate.


Will they though? I have my doubts as to how much aid the western world would give if Russia invaded Romania right now.

Based on the response to a border dispute in which a region declared its independence and the Russian-majority population voted nearly unanimously to join Russia, you think NATO would do nothing if Russia threatened the sovereignty of a state nearly 100 years old in which the Romanian-majority population has not expressed any desire to join Russia.

Am I interpreting that correctly?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:36 am

Io.Draco wrote:
...most of the western world will be treaty-bound to retaliate.


Will they though? I have my doubts as to how much aid the western world would give if Russia invaded Romania right now.


Yes, and a lot.

It would come at the perfect time, with sanctions failing to have any obvious impact in Iran, to show that NATO does indeed have muscle. Plus it would be a perfect PR campaign in that it would be one of the few clear-cut unambiguously "right" things to do in the history of, well, history. There would be an obvious aggressor who clearly broke their treaties and invaded a peaceful country. The cold war is still relevant history to most worldwide leaders - or just a generation behind, to boot.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:49 am

I bet America would, but there would be quite a lot of hesitation on the part of many EU members of NATO. That's my take on it.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:22 am

A good little war would be welcome for teh economy in many of the flailingeuropean coutnries.
In a clear cut situation with an aggressor, treaty obligations etc, a war helps unite countries that are struggling economically (plenty of history on that).

Of course, not a single leader of state inside NATO wants a war (there are huge downsides to it), but the economical trouble wouldn't be the reason to avoid it.

Historically warfare and teh military has only increased wealth.


As for "if Russia invade Romania" - you can bet there would be a large response, not just due to NATO, but the integrity of the EU would be breached, the EU countries would respond, even the ones that are outside NATO, and not just economically.

-

As for the reason Putin is regarded as mad by some, is because what he does is not rationally sound for anyone desiring peaceful prosperousness.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:45 am

Io.Draco wrote:I bet America would, but there would be quite a lot of hesitation on the part of many EU members of NATO. That's my take on it.


America would. Britain would. France would. Poland would. The Scandinavian and Baltic countries certainly would, for they have no love of Russia. Germany might not commit much in the way of troops, but they wouldn't hesitate to bankroll the others.

That's more than enough.

Also, the Russian military is honestly not that great.
Their special forces, cyberwarfare, and intelligence services are one thing, but the quality of troops and equipment falls off a cliff once you look beyond those small communities. Half their regular infantry are drug addicts. Most of their equipment is old and rusting amalgamations of cannibalized parts. Their logistical supply capability sucks.

Russia would not fare well in a head-on conflict with the EU, let alone the USA. The type of warfare Russia is best at is the type it is currently engaged in; low-profile, murky proxy-conflicts which are more about effective control of the narrative than about guns.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:45 am

Also, the Russian military is honestly not that great.


I'd strongly suggest you take a long hard look at the militarizes close to the border with Russia. They are in a far worse shape.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:59 pm

Io.Draco wrote:
Also, the Russian military is honestly not that great.


I'd strongly suggest you take a long hard look at the militarizes close to the border with Russia. They are in a far worse shape.


Well since it wouldn't be the Romanian army that would be fighting Russia, but a pan-european army with the US, teh shape of the army in a given country is less of an issue.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:33 pm

I disagree, since there no significant forces of other countries in the area. It would takes crucial days for troops from the west of Europe to aid the east, and that's just talking QRF forces let alone mobilizing large segments of those militarizes.

I say this because my personal belief is we NATO should create military bases on it's eastern border, not some 600 infantry with a couple of F-16s, not eight jet fighters from Western European nations or a couple of Canadian F-18. If the goal is to deter Russia you need a lot more then that.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:54 pm

Fortunately for Romania, Putin is likely smart enough to realize it's not the materiel deployed on the first day of a conflict that matters, but the materiel that can be brought to bear over the term of the conflict. That's why Kuwait is not a province of Iraq.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:25 pm

Koatanga wrote:Fortunately for Romania, Putin is likely smart enough to realize it's not the materiel deployed on the first day of a conflict that matters, but the materiel that can be brought to bear over the term of the conflict. That's why Kuwait is not a province of Iraq.


This.
Any territory seized will simply be reclaimed in short order. We're talking about Russia trying to annex countries here. That implies a desire not just to take the territory, but to HOLD it, which is what Russia is manifestly incapable of doing against a NATO force.

It's easy to take ground. It's holding it that is the hard part. The Russians know this. Ask Napoleon or Hitler.

Large concentrations of defensive forces on the border simply opens you up to a preemptive strike.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:52 am

Fortunately for Romania, Putin is likely smart enough to realize it's not the materiel deployed on the first day of a conflict that matters, but the materiel that can be brought to bear over the term of the conflict. That's why Kuwait is not a province of Iraq.


Don't compare the Russian military to Iraq, it would be a bloodbath on both sides if they engaged in a conflict that lasted for over half a year like that. Russia has a great deal of highly advanced air defenses, artillery and tanks. NATO has been relying on it's air force for decades now to win conflicts, what happens when that air force is neutralized in large part thanks to S-300s and S-400s?

It would take many weeks to plan an offensive to retake back land Putin would take, during which time a peace deal would likely be reached.

This.
Any territory seized will simply be reclaimed in short order. We're talking about Russia trying to annex countries here. That implies a desire not just to take the territory, but to HOLD it, which is what Russia is manifestly incapable of doing against a NATO force


Organizing a sizable NATO force strong enough to beat back Russia would take time. Putin I imagine would not desire to hold Romania, but he might take Moldova and hold it.

To me a war would only happen, and even then it's improbable, if Putin took over all of Ukraine or just the East/South and then NATO and the EU slapped sector sanctions on Russia. Then Putin would invade, seize the Baltic states in a matter of days, drive deep in Poland, Romania, Hungary and then begin negotiations while his forces dig in. While NATO might have a decent shot to push Putin back in the south taking back the Baltic States would prove a lot more challenging: Kaliningrad stands as a fortress that would be difficult to overcome and Russia would have a strong naval advantage there with the Northern Fleet moving to support the Baltic Sea Fleet.

During the negotiations Putin would give NATO back the Baltic States in exchange for keeping Ukraine and removing sanctions.

Large concentrations of defensive forces on the border simply opens you up to a preemptive strike.


They also deter the enemy from striking because they would face heavy resistance, preventing the enemy for taking territory and digging in. This is why the countries close to Russia are demanding military forces and they are getting it, small forces so far but hopefully more sizable ones as well.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:45 am

Io Draco wrote:It would take many weeks to plan an offensive to retake back land Putin would take, during which time a peace deal would likely be reached.


There's the linchpin of your argument right there. And it's wrong. The plans you think would take weeks or months have already been made and are in place. The DOD employs any number of think tanks that have the sole purpose of designing "what if" scenarios for the military to follow.

"What if Russia ... " is one of the most popular, I'd imagine. The instant Putin sent Russian troops into Crimea, those plans were pulled out, dusted off, and are in the process of being updated for the situation as it stands. If Putin were to initiate aggression toward another country, he would be met with almost immediate delaying force from nearby NATO nations, and then overwhelming response within the week that would force him out faster than he got in.

See, when I was in the Army I was part of what's known as a HIRC mission (Heavy Immediate Response Capability task force). It's essentially a good-sized chunk of equipment and personnel who are tasked with being able to go anywhere in the world within 72 hours of getting the call. Each individual task force is slightly different, because it's made up of what's on hand in any given area. In my case, it was some tanks, some apache helicopter gunships, some cobra helicopter gunships, a bunch of artillery (consisting mainly of M109 155mm "Paladin" mobile howitzer cannons with a couple of close support 80mm mortar teams) and the logistics necessary to arrange transport and supply for anything up to a 6 week engagement assuming worst case scenario and we had to operate on our own without support (although personally, I think that "6 week" thing sounds like a crock of shit. The first time the Army does something that makes sense or deploys a program that works as advertised, the entire system will collapse under its own weight).

That's what we had available when I was stationed in Southeastern Germany, and it's likely one of the elements that would be used to delay an invasion on Russia's part. I'm pretty intimately familiar with the capabilities of my unit and it would be one hell of a rock in Putin's shoe. Sure, it would individually have a pretty short lifespan, but mine wasn't the only task force in the general area. The "Heavy" in the acronym isn't just there for show.

The politics would come later.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:35 am

The problem is that Russia is expertly using infowars to avoid outright acts of war. What will happen if the russian minorities in the baltic call for russian aid and Putin responds?
Paxen
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:50 am

"What if Russia ... " is one of the most popular, I'd imagine. The instant Putin sent Russian troops into Crimea, those plans were pulled out, dusted off, and are in the process of being updated for the situation as it stands. If Putin were to initiate aggression toward another country, he would be met with almost immediate delaying force from nearby NATO nations, and then overwhelming response within the week that would force him out faster than he got in.


Of course the are military planners who deal with what if's, any military worth a damn has them but the issue is that they were caught with their pants down when it came to Crimea and what Putin did, and also they found the defenses on the eastern border to be unprepared for a potential Russian invasion. I doubt they had any plans concerning a potential Russian invasion in the Baltic States or Romania and while they are working on them right now, the problem is that it would still take months to implement a strong enough defense plan that would prevent Putin from steamrolling in those countries in days.

NATO generals have openly gone on record saying that the Russians could destroy the fighting capabilities of the Baltic States in hours, and any QTF force would have to be deployed from Germany/Poland, avoid Kaliningrad with it's strong air defenses and land in the Baltic States to fight a delaying action, that's assuming the planes carrying said troops would not be shot down by the Russian air defenses or by the Russian air force, which would have dominance from the very beginning over the skies in the Baltic States seeing as there no medium or long range air defenses in any of those countries.

The "Heavy" in the acronym isn't just there for show.


I am aware, but you are also aware that troops have been pulled out of Europe in recent years, months including some of that heavy equipment. There's no more american tanks on EU soil for example, they were pulled out last year.

What will happen if the russian minorities in the baltic call for russian aid and Putin responds?


The Baltics, with a combined total of 20.000 troops between them for all their service branches would fall easily.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:09 pm

Your information is out of date, Io.Draco - US tank batallions returned to Germany less than a year after they were pulled out.

We probably took a hands-off approach to Crimea being "invaded" by Russia because of two main reasons:
First, they didn't fire a shot.
Second, Crimea overwhelmingly voted to go back to Mother Russia during an unconstitutional military coup of the greater country (Ukraine)

That doesn't mean we couldn't still go and kick Putin right back out again if the need arises. In this case, it's not the right thing to do on any number of levels. Remember, the US Military is incredibly mobile. We can move anywhere in the world with sufficient strength to accomplish a (reasonable) mission in a matter of 2-3 days from getting the go order.

Russia's air force is, and has been for quite some time, laughable. Their fixed anti-air defenses are less so, but those would be a matter of a week or two (tops!) to disable via sabotage ops on the part of our special forces. Fixed defenses sound a lot better on paper than they actually are in reality. There are also any number of ways to move troops that doesn't involve flying them in - Europe and the Baltic States' railroad transportation systems are excellent too, and combat engineers are quite capable of repairing damage to them (or even laying brand new track) fairly rapidly.

Again, Russia might be able to take the Baltic. He probably can - shit, they would fall over in a stiff breeze. The problem Putin faces is that the Russian military is an absolute joke. It's a paper tiger, and actually holding what he is capable of taking is impossible. So he's going to settle for Crimea and sticking with the proven tactic of just showing a stronger Russian economy than his neighbors have.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:26 pm

Your information is out of date, Io.Draco - US tank batallions returned to Germany less than a year after they were pulled out.

We probably took a hands-off approach to Crimea being "invaded" by Russia because of two main reasons:
First, they didn't fire a shot.
Second, Crimea overwhelmingly voted to go back to Mother Russia during an unconstitutional military coup of the greater country (Ukraine)


My mistake on the tanks. Although it's only one battalion and it's for training purposes.

Maybe the US military isn't as powerful as you would like to believe, also it had a lot more to do with the unwillingness of the public to get involved. If you can't get involved in Syria due to public pressure do you think you would get involved in Ukraine?

In a prolonged conflict with Russia...well you could win, but in a short term conflict lasting several days/weeks considering the forces available at the moment in Europe it wouldn't be so clear cut.

I would ask how many in the American public even know where the fuck Estonia is, let alone if they care for their country to send troops to defend it.

Russia's air force is, and has been for quite some time, laughable. Their fixed anti-air defenses are less so, but those would be a matter of a week or two (tops!) to disable via sabotage ops on the part of our special forces. Fixed defenses sound a lot better on paper than they actually are in reality.


Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles are very mobile, easy to move and set up. As for their air force, laughable in comparison to what exactly? F-22s and Eurofighter Typhoons? Perhaps, although they do have better missiles on their craft.

Compared to the hundreds of F-16s that make up the bulk of aircraft in Eastern and Central Europe, not so much. Those SU-27s, MIG-31s and upgraded MIG-29s would decimate the Polish, Turkish, Greek, Danish air forces any day.

There are also any number of ways to move troops that doesn't involve flying them in - Europe and the Baltic States' railroad transportation systems are excellent too, and combat engineers are quite capable of repairing damage to them (or even laying brand new track) fairly rapidly.


Except there is no direct link from Germany to the Baltic states, you would have to cross Kaliningrad. Good luck with that. Romanian railways are in terrible condition.

Again, Russia might be able to take the Baltic. He probably can - shit, they would fall over in a stiff breeze.


He would, then chunks of Poland and Romania would fall before reinforcements arrived in those countries to hold and then push back the Russians.

The problem Putin faces is that the Russian military is an absolute joke. It's a paper tiger, and actually holding what he is capable of taking is impossible. So he's going to settle for Crimea and sticking with the proven tactic of just showing a stronger Russian economy than his neighbors have


That's what they were saying before Crimea, then they woke up to the reality: That while much of the west has been spending less and less money on their armies Russia has poured in hundreds of billions in theirs.

Some media outlets claim that only the Spetsnaz are worth a damn based on what we saw in Crimea and that the rest of the army is trash. The problem with that logic is that the troops who took over Crimea were Russian marines.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:54 pm

Io.Draco wrote:My mistake on the tanks.

Or maybe the US military isn't as powerful as you would like to believe, also it had a lot more to do with the unwillingness of the public to get involved. If you can't get involved in Syria due to public pressure do you think you would get involved in Ukraine?


Syria was rather expertly spun by the media to fit the fact that we really didn't want to get involved there to begin with. It was a no-win situation, and everyone with any sense could see just that. We also don't have any treaties there. Yet somehow, we still managed to get what we wanted, which was the destruction of their chemical weapons.

As far as people knowing where Estonia is, you'd see the same exact thing as with Syria. People may not know where it is right now, but let it become a hot spot and everyone would become instant experts. Thank Wikipedia for that.

Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles are very mobile, easy to move and set up. As for their air force, laughable in comparison to what exactly? F-22s and Eurofighter Typhoons? Perhaps, although they do have better missiles on their craft.


And you think in an age where a satellite can count the hairs sticking out of your nose as you run a marathon in real time we wouldn't know exactly where they are? What exactly did you think I meant by "taking out their fixed defenses" anyway?

Compared to the hundreds of F-16s that make up the bulk of aircraft in Eastern and Central Europe, not so much. Those SU-27s, MIG-31s and upgraded MIG-29s would decimate the Polish, Turkish, Greek, Danish air forces any day.


I can't speak to the capabilities of allied forces as much as I can to our own. But we definitely have Russia beat in air power. The USAF, USN, and USMC all have their own air capability - and the F/A-18 Hornet alone is a better jet in every response than any MiG ever made. Keep in mind, too, that the F/A-18 Hornet isn't a dogfighter like the F-15 and F-16. Sure, they may have more MiGs than we have fighter jets, I'll grant that.

But you know what they call a numerical advantage over a superiorly equipped and trained force? Target saturation. Russian equipment maintenance and training is shit compared to the West. I've participated in a number of joint exercises with Russia as well as other countries, and can tell you that from firsthand experience.

Except there is no direct link from Germany to the Baltic states, you would have to cross Kaliningrad. Good luck with that. Romanian railways are in terrible condition.


And if you think that Kaliningrad would be anything but a speedbump you're mistaken. Remember, the amount of force that the US alone can throw to any point at nearly any time is staggering. That's not including other allied nations like, for instance, Germany and the UK.

That's what they were saying before Crimea, then they woke up to the reality: That while much of the west has been spending less and less money on their armies Russia has poured in hundreds of billions in theirs.


The US Defense budget is higher than the next 26 countries combined. Pretty sure we don't have to worry about Russia's "hundreds of billions" of defense budget compared to ours.

Some media outlets claim that only the Spetsnaz are worth a damn based on what we saw in Crimea and that the rest of the army is trash. The problem with that logic is that the troops who took over Crimea were Russian marines.


And those media outlets are, for a change, 100% correct. You say that there was a "takeover" of Crimea by Russian troops - I'd like to remind you that there wasn't a single shot fired in that takeover. Russia has manpower going for it, and it has weight of materiel. What it does not have, and never really has had, was quality. In any contest pitting quality against quantity, quality will win almost every single time.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:19 pm

I suspect there's some devaluation of US military might based on the lack of real success in Iraq and Afghanistan. I submit that in both of those cases the target was not clearly defined or even very clearly visible.

In Iraq the US removed the strongest of the factions in what amounted to a civil war, creating a power vacuum in what was already a hot area. It then had to hold ground until its puppet government established itself well enough to survive the attacks by the other factions. Most European nations saw what Bush was getting into and didn't want to touch it with a barge pole, so the US had little support.

In Afghanistan the US was not up against Afghanistan, but a non-governmental association playing hide-and-seek. A sledge hammer is not very effective against a fly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have other scenarios in which it is very effective indeed.

When Russia moved into Crimea, the people there already wanted to join Russia, so going in to kick Russia out would have been against the will of the people - the US would be fighting "invaders" while also struggling against the very people they are there to liberate, who don't want to be liberated. That's a no-win situation.

If Russia were to attack Romania, there would be resistance from the population making it difficult for the Russian army to blend in and hide, and the US would have a clearly-defined mission against identifiable targets while being backed by the entirety of the European Union. There's simply no valid comparison between the scenarios.

Give the US a stand-up fight against any other nation on the planet, and the US can bring enough might to bear to win the conflict.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:40 pm

Io.Draco, you are utterly mistake about pretty much every assertion you have made. If you were a newly registered poster, I'd have even gone so far as to say it smelled like you were fishing to provoke the people refuting you to accidentally disclose sensitive US military capabilities.

At any rate, I don't really feel the need to write a point-by-point rebuttal. Fivelives seems to have that under control just fine.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest