Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Ah yes, the legitimate interim government, not recognised by around a third of the country, and whose first actions were to attempt to outlaw Russian as an official language. Brilliant.

As opposed to an interim government backed up by foreign troops who secedes from a nation after a rushed "referendum"? It's not brilliant, but it sure as hell beats the Russian equivalent.

When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen? The interim "government" had tried to ban Russian as an official language, it was quite clear that they were not exactly welcome in the eyes of Kiev.

 -Shrike- wrote:
When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen? The interim "government" had tried to ban Russian as an official language, it was quite clear that they were not exactly welcome in the eyes of Kiev.

They also backed down from the banning, no? As in, stepped back when they were called out on it?

Yes, hence my use of past tense. The fact that they dropped it wouldn't have helped public opinion (in predominantly Russian speaking areas). Once it was clear what their views were, even if they decide not to continue acting on them, that won't make the Russian speakers feel any more welcome.

Historically Crimea was never part of the Ukraine. Giving it to them when the USSR broke up was a bad idea.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I was thinking, us Swedes could totally give everyone in Russia a Swedish citizenship and then claim that all of Russia should totally be Swedish becuase there's a lot of people with Swedish citizenship living there and because we sailed around in rivers in the 800's, right?

Well, Russia was founded by the Swedes, and you could even argue that all Russians are Swedish...
So what is Sweden waiting for? Protect ethnic Swedes! Get 'invited' again and ALL HAIL THE GREAT NORTHERN EMPIRE! Vikings are mandatory
Don't know if the Russians would be so willing though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Historically Crimea was never part of the Ukraine. Giving it to them when the USSR broke up was a bad idea.

Well, can't really blame Khrushchev for it. Back when he made the decision to give Crimea to Ukraine, it was still all Soviet Union, and it didn't look like the USSR was ever going down.
When the USSR did break up, Crimea tried to get back to Russia, but failed.
They tried again in 1994.
Crimea returning to Russia really was going to happen sooner or later. It was a bad decision of Khrushchev, but condemning with hindsight is easy of course.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I was thinking, us Swedes could totally give everyone in Russia a Swedish citizenship and then claim that all of Russia should totally be Swedish becuase there's a lot of people with Swedish citizenship living there and because we sailed around in rivers in the 800's, right?

Well, Russia was founded by the Swedes, and you could even argue that all Russians are Swedish...
So what is Sweden waiting for? Protect ethnic Swedes! Get 'invited' again and ALL HAIL THE GREAT NORTHERN EMPIRE! Vikings are mandatory
Don't know if the Russians would be so willing though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Historically Crimea was never part of the Ukraine. Giving it to them when the USSR broke up was a bad idea.

Well, can't really blame Khrushchev for it. Back when he made the decision to give Crimea to Ukraine, it was still all Soviet Union, and it didn't look like the USSR was ever going down.
When the USSR did break up, Crimea tried to get back to Russia, but failed.
They tried again in 1994.
Crimea returning to Russia really was going to happen sooner or later. It was a bad decision of Khrushchev, but condemning with hindsight is easy of course.

But it makes it easier to understand them wanting to be part of Russia again.
edit for spelling

And no-one is pecking at Russia's borders. The Ukraine is not their territory, as much as they'd like to think they get to decide the future of smaller countries on their boundaries that isn't how the world works. If countries at the borders of Russia are inclined to look at East and not West, then Russia has to face up to the fact that other countries, of their own free will, would prefer closer ties with countries that aren't Russia.

Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence. We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.

If Ukraine wanted to come to the West of their own free will, that would be one thing. They could have voted on it in the elections that were only a few months away. That's not what happened though. We have seen the elections in Ukraine swing back and forth from east to west, so I don't really want to hear about rigged elections. What we have here is the west seeing that elections probably wouldn't go their was so they staged a revolution. We can see by how much popular support the revolution had that this was not the will of the people, it was the will of a small group of people that were funded and trained by the West for just this situation.

They are one of the five permanent members of the UN, something that Brazil, Japan and Germany aren't granted, despite each having bigger GDPs than Russia.

Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.

In fact, one of the major reasons Russia is having to resort to crude, direct force by deploying troops as they are is because they simply don't have the soft power lure that they like to think they have.

Right, because the West is know for its soft touch.
Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.
In fact if the West had the soft touch, they wouldn't have needed to cause a revolution in a sovereign country to grasp control of it.

You're confusing some really fanciful economic headlines with actual economic realities. The total GDP of Russia about 2 trillion. The EU clocks in at 17 trillion.

Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.

The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.

Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.

 Ketara wrote:
Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.

Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Economically? yes.
But military? A few thousand Russian nukes and most senior policy makers in the West beg to differ.

Having the means to blow up the whole damn planet needs to be respected, obviously, and its why Russia can consider itself free from invasion. But that's massively different thing to military power, which requires the ability to exert conventional force over an area without having to resort to the ultimate solution. ANd in that regard Russia is behind Germany, France and the UK just on their own, let alone if they were acting in a unified manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations

I think Russia has little to fear from China.
China and Russia have too much in common nowadays. They are natural allies.

Uh, those sorts of treaties and missions are common place, and similar treaties exist between the USA and Russia, and even stronger treaties existed between China and Russia before they had their last war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
You'll note that I mentioned the timeframe of 'fifty years' as well.

Whilst the EU does have, and will continue to have far more industrialised economic clout globally, the ever increasing demand for resources will put any successful version of the EEC in a good place economically as time progresses, and will possibly allow it to punch above its weight. It's all very well and good to have the greater numbers of factories and population, but if you have no natural resources to pump into both of those things, you're forced to dicker accordingly with those who do. That or invade them.

Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen?

What anyone was expecting is irrelevant.

What would have been proper would have been for Russians living in that region to form a formal secessionist party and attempt to petition government for a referendum on separating from the Ukraine (and even then it would be their own choice if they wanted to join Russia or form their own country). If, and only if, that effort was supressed by the government in Kiev could Russia, acting through the UN, attempt to force Kiev in to allowing proper and fair legal process to take place. If, and only if, other countries unfairly blocked that action through the UN could Russia just drive tanks in to the Crimea.

Skipping all those steps and just straight up rolling tanks in at the first sign of unrest is extraordinary, and I am amazed that so many people choose to pretend that isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence.

'Sphere of influence' is a nice way of saying big countries get to dick around with little countries. Which is an unfortunate reality of the world in some circumstances, but far from being an actual, acceptable state of affairs.

We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.

'But they did it too it's not fair' is not actually an established principal of international law.

If Ukraine wanted to come to the West of their own free will, that would be one thing. They could have voted on it in the elections that were only a few months away. That's not what happened though. We have seen the elections in Ukraine swing back and forth from east to west, so I don't really want to hear about rigged elections. What we have here is the west seeing that elections probably wouldn't go their was so they staged a revolution. We can see by how much popular support the revolution had that this was not the will of the people, it was the will of a small group of people that were funded and trained by the West for just this situation.

You appear to be assuming that the small numbers in Kiev who formed a long lasting protest were the only complainants against the former government, that they alone made the former government collapse. THat's more than a little silly, to be honest.

A sensible argument would be that the outrage against the former government was due more to corruption and mismanagement, and doesn't automatically mean that the pro-Russian sentiment of the former government was

Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.

Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members.

Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.

Right, because the West is know for its soft touch.
Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.

Yeah, there's been plenty of crude, incredibly violent and generally unnecessary uses of force by the West. But such uses of force have been largely irrelevant to the rise in power of the West (and in many cases counter-productive). Instead, I'll ask you to simply recognise the basic reality that as the 20th century wore on Asia, Africa and South America all looked first and foremost to the West not only for trade but also as a model for how to run their own countries, because very fething obviously those were the countries who figured out how to get rich and outside of some strange exceptions that's what most every country wants.

Russia don't have that, because its systems and institutions suck.

Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.

Mwahahaha. Again you're paying attention to media headlines, and showing no knowledge of actual world realities. The average citizen in Russia lives on 14,000 USD a year... which is below the average income in Greece of 22,000 USD. In Italy your living standard is more than double that of the Russian, at $33,000 per year.

Even with the economic meltdown in those countries, the material life of the average Greek or Italian is far better than the average Russian. Because, seriously, Russian systems and institutions suck.

Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.

Resources are always being chased. They were much hyped as commodities went silly even past the GFC thanks to some fairly strange Chinese policy and the standard infrastructure overhang, but even if they had remained at those silly highs, it doesn't make them capable of over-coming vast and deep reaching economic and political issues such as those plaguing Russia.

 Jihadin wrote:
As long as we do not start shipping upgraded combat gear to Ukraine.

I think, after extreme debate we're sending them...bananas.

Old tried and true method of a laugh gag

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
As long as we do not start shipping upgraded combat gear to Ukraine.

I think, after extreme debate we're sending them...bananas.

Don't mock it's powah!


OP: I thought we were already sending them stuff? o.O

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/world/europe/ukraine-gunmen-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

5 die in clashes between the Ukrainian army and Pro-Russian forces.

What could be interesting to see would be how much this has to do with Snowden. Its possible he showed the Russians that the West had plans for Ukraine, it would show how Russia was so ready for what was going on.

Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.

Being a puppet of Putin probably was a condition for his stay in Russia, so he didn't had much choice.

 Tyran wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.

Being a puppet of Putin probably was a condition for his stay in Russia, so he didn't had much choice.

He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.

All that his puppet show with Putin did was lend credence to some of the allegations that his "leaks" were not done solely on the idea of conscience but rather because of him being paid to serve as a spy.

 Tyran wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.

Being a puppet of Putin probably was a condition for his stay in Russia, so he didn't had much choice.

You are right, I agree with you. It still was a sad moment to see him coming up, suddenly speaking in favor of Putin, even afterwards, losing his entire credibility in return.

The thing with Snowden is that he chose to betray his country and then ran from it to avoid being prosecuted for his crimes. If he really stood up for what he speaks, he would have stayed in the US and faced prosecution.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.

LOL... he didnt.. hes bashed putin for spying too

Yeah staying on the US, how that ended for the other whistleblowers?

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.

Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.

That is nonsense and you know it.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Economically? yes.
But military? A few thousand Russian nukes and most senior policy makers in the West beg to differ.

Having the means to blow up the whole damn planet needs to be respected, obviously, and its why Russia can consider itself free from invasion. But that's massively different thing to military power, which requires the ability to exert conventional force over an area without having to resort to the ultimate solution. ANd in that regard Russia is behind Germany, France and the UK just on their own, let alone if they were acting in a unified manner.

That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia. Unified (which Europe isn't), they hold up quite nicely to Russia, but on their own?
The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500
Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082
France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000
Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations

I think Russia has little to fear from China.
China and Russia have too much in common nowadays. They are natural allies.

Uh, those sorts of treaties and missions are common place, and similar treaties exist between the USA and Russia, and even stronger treaties existed between China and Russia before they had their last war.

They do? Could you please show me those treaties? AFAIK Russia and the US have never conducted military excercises together. Neither have the US and China. Military excersises are a strong symbol of alliance.

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You'll note that I mentioned the timeframe of 'fifty years' as well.

Whilst the EU does have, and will continue to have far more industrialised economic clout globally, the ever increasing demand for resources will put any successful version of the EEC in a good place economically as time progresses, and will possibly allow it to punch above its weight. It's all very well and good to have the greater numbers of factories and population, but if you have no natural resources to pump into both of those things, you're forced to dicker accordingly with those who do. That or invade them.

Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.

Comparing Russia to Africa is like comparing apples to oranges.

 sebster wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen?

What anyone was expecting is irrelevant.

What would have been proper would have been for Russians living in that region to form a formal secessionist party and attempt to petition government for a referendum on separating from the Ukraine (and even then it would be their own choice if they wanted to join Russia or form their own country). If, and only if, that effort was supressed by the government in Kiev could Russia, acting through the UN, attempt to force Kiev in to allowing proper and fair legal process to take place. If, and only if, other countries unfairly blocked that action through the UN could Russia just drive tanks in to the Crimea.

Skipping all those steps and just straight up rolling tanks in at the first sign of unrest is extraordinary, and I am amazed that so many people choose to pretend that isn't true.

The Crimeans tried thay way already. Twice. It didn't work before, it would not have worked this time. Doing it again would have been nothing but a useless waste of time.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence.

'Sphere of influence' is a nice way of saying big countries get to dick around with little countries. Which is an unfortunate reality of the world in some circumstances, but far from being an actual, acceptable state of affairs.

That is the way it has always been and how it will always be. I'd say it is the actual acceptable state of affairs. Nations have no friends, only interests.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.

'But they did it too it's not fair' is not actually an established principal of international law.

But it is a moral justification.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.

Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members.
Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.

And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent.
And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first.
Your notion that Russia has political power above its real world political power is quite laughable. All of Russia's political power is real world political power. In what other world is Russia supposed to have more political power according to you? Afaik, there is only one world, and it is the real world.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Right, because the West is know for its soft touch.
Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.

Yeah, there's been plenty of crude, incredibly violent and generally unnecessary uses of force by the West. But such uses of force have been largely irrelevant to the rise in power of the West (and in many cases counter-productive). Instead, I'll ask you to simply recognise the basic reality that as the 20th century wore on Asia, Africa and South America all looked first and foremost to the West not only for trade but also as a model for how to run their own countries, because very fething obviously those were the countries who figured out how to get rich and outside of some strange exceptions that's what most every country wants.

Russia don't have that, because its systems and institutions suck.

The rise of powerof the West is a complex historical process that has been going on since the Middle Ages. Russia has for a large part shared and contibuted in this process, but due to its more turbulent and troubled recent history, it still lags behind somewhat.
And seeing the current state of Africa and many parts as Asia, I wouldn't say they look to the West in how to run their country, and many attempts to export a 'Western style' to those countries have failed horribly. The Western system is not inherently better, its system and institutions still suck. The economical dominance of the West is not only due to its 'system' it is a very complex historical process that requires more than just a style of government.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.

Mwahahaha. Again you're paying attention to media headlines, and showing no knowledge of actual world realities. The average citizen in Russia lives on 14,000 USD a year... which is below the average income in Greece of 22,000 USD. In Italy your living standard is more than double that of the Russian, at $33,000 per year.

Even with the economic meltdown in those countries, the material life of the average Greek or Italian is far better than the average Russian. Because, seriously, Russian systems and institutions suck.

Yelling at every opportunity that "Russian systems and institutions suck" only makes you look like you don't have any actual arguments.
The standard of living for the average Russian is comparable to that of the average Italian. Salaries in Italy are higher than they are in Russia, but this is necessary because life in Italy is a lot more expansive than it is in Russia. In Russia you can get the same stuff as in Italy, but for half the price.
And Greece has a lower standard of living. Salaries are higher there, but so is unemployment. High salaries do not matter much when you do not have a job. 23.1% of the Greek population lives below the poverty line, compared to 13.1% of the Russian population in 2010.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.

Resources are always being chased. They were much hyped as commodities went silly even past the GFC thanks to some fairly strange Chinese policy and the standard infrastructure overhang, but even if they had remained at those silly highs, it doesn't make them capable of over-coming vast and deep reaching economic and political issues such as those plaguing Russia.

Wait and see.
The West is on its decline. China has the future, and Russia is hitching a ride.

 Tyran wrote:
Yeah staying on the US, how that ended for the other whistleblowers?

The ones who were legitimately whistleblowers? Depends on the circumstances of the trial.
The ones who claimed they were whistleblowers but were selling/leaking information with no thoughts as to the consequence? Not well--which is as should be expected.

Being a whistleblower actually has a measure of responsibility with it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Yeah staying on the US, how that ended for the other whistleblowers?

The ones who were legitimately whistleblowers? Depends on the circumstances of the trial.
The ones who claimed they were whistleblowers but were selling/leaking information with no thoughts as to the consequence? Not well--which is as should be expected.

Being a whistleblower actually has a measure of responsibility with it.

Ans Snowden is a bit of a gakker in any case.
"The US is ignoring civil liberties, better go to Russia!"

Iron_Captain wrote:AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world.

I'm going to have to steal that for my sig.!

They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Germany and the west are struggling to recover from economic chaos, thanks to the banks.
America and Europe are living off debt. If Russia turns the gas off, they're sunk.
Europe will do nothing. If you think Russia is overreacting, it's no different than America with Cuba.

Sebster wrote:Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.

Only 2.5 trillion. Wow. I spend that every time I do my weekly shop, right?

On a more serious note, sure, it doesn't quite draw up to the US. Or the EU. Or China or Japan. But it's still just a teensy bit above pocket change, no? Or indeed, the rest of the world past the ones I just specified.

There's also the fact that I was looking a spot further down the line (fifty years was specified, for the third time). Not to mention the fact that looking purely at GDP isn't always the best way to gauge economics. And the fact that I also qualified with the phrase, 'self contained sort of way'.

Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.

That was a terrible analogy sebster, and not the sort of quality post I've come to expect from you. You and I can both point out eighty five highly self-evident reasons as to why that analogy is highly flawed and would not apply in the scenario under discussion. I rate both of our intelligence (and indeed, most of Dakka's) highly enough to not even bother listing them.

Iron_Captain wrote:That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia. Unified (which Europe isn't), they hold up quite nicely to Russia, but on their own?
The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500
Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082
France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000
Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.

The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.

sebster wrote:Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members.
Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.

Iron_Captain wrote:And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent.
And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first.
Your notion that Russia has political power above its real world political power is quite laughable. All of Russia's political power is real world political power. In what other world is Russia supposed to have more political power according to you? Afaik, there is only one world, and it is the real world.

I'm split on this one. On one fork, sebster is accurate in that in terms of global economy and comparative military strength, the Russians are not as relevant/powerful as they once were. On the flip side, they still have the ability to blow up the world twice over, which to me, makes them reasonably relevant.

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'

Got you covered Ketara

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'

It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'

It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.

In the fifties, that might have been remotely accurate. Please accept my most genuine reassurances that it is the case no longer, and indeed, has not been for quite some time.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source?

Red Storm Rising.

 Ketara wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'

It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.

In the fifties, that might have been remotely accurate. Please accept my most genuine reassurances that it is the case no longer, and indeed, has not been for quite some time.

Yeah well I'm old but not that old.
They were using jaguars and mrca's as interdiction aircraft. so it's around the 1980-1990s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source?

Red Storm Rising.

Red storm rising ?? was that a film???