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.

elotar wrote:
Putin will not invade europe with tank divisions. All baltic states got russian minority witch can be exploited the same way as in Ukrane. Then he will(already is) take control of corrupt or just crasy politicians, crime groups and infrastructure corporations and one day you just wake up in his grasp.

So, none of the baltic has European support now?

Who do you have?

--------------------------Russia – USA--------------------------

1. Total Population: 142,517,670 – 313,847,465
2. Manpower available: 69,117,271 – 142,212,012
3. Military reserve: 20,035,000 – 1,458,000
4. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,2936
5. Navy ship strength: 224 – 2907
6. Submarines: 58 – 71
7. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,293.
8. Total helicopter strength: 1,635 – 6,665

...ish.

Whem', do you mean 2 mil instead of 20 mil?

Putin winning Hands down and he only had one movie.....Obama up to what? movie VII?...why does this sound familiar....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Whem', do you mean 2 mil instead of 20 mil?

Maybe... *squints* The sources (CIA, wiki, etc...) are all over the map.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Whem', do you mean 2 mil instead of 20 mil?

Maybe... *squints* The sources (CIA, wiki, etc...) are all over the map.

I was just thinking that 20mil seemed a bit big.

Edit: wiki says 2,035,000 reserve, 766,000 active.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

True. But the world has changed since then, as has the average Briton's opinion of war. And Britain is one of the more hawkish, warlike nations in Europe. I can't really imagine Germany or the Netherlands doing the same.

To reiterate the previous quote:

England has no eternal friendships and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.

Our interests would demand that we answered an invasion of the Baltics with as much force as we could muster.

And does this quote by a long dead British politician reflect the attitude towards war of the modern British people? Is waging a war in the Baltics in their interests? Or only in the interests of the British government? Will the British people allow their government to wage a war against Russia for the Baltics, thereby endangering Britain itself?

 Ketara wrote:
I daresay Russia could occupy them easily enough, but it wouldn't hold them long. There's be five US carrier fleets parked off the coast within about a fortnight, along with a dozen odd British regiments and warships. We retain enough of our amphibious assault capabilities between us to re-enact D-day Mark 2 if we have to. That's assuming Russia launched a surprise assault.

Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

 Ketara wrote:
If Russia built up its forces properly, called up the reservists, lubricated the tanks, etc, and made a general push through Europe, to quote myself, they'd probably get about a third of the way into Germany before they were stopped. But then they'd be pushed back and ground up into pieces from there.

War has too many uncertaint factors to predict the outcome as certainly as that.

 Ketara wrote:
This is why Russia will not mess with NATO. Russia has always historically been sane enough to realise that instigating the largest war since WW2 with itself more or less guaranteed to be on the losing side is not a smart move. Better by far to play the Great Game and bite off pieces of influence and land here and there when the opportunity presents itself. Putin is not the first to play this game, and he won't be the last. Russian leaders have been doing it for as long as Russia has existed.

True. Nobody would gain anything from a war.

 Ketara wrote:
But make no mistake about it, regardless of how some of the media portray him, Putin's no Metternich, Bismarck or Disraeli. He's also no Alexander the Great or Napoleon. He's neither a genius statesman, nor messianic military genius. He's just a somewhat mediocre ex-KGB statesman playing by a nineteenth century rulebook. He'll gobble up two or three frontier territories at enormous cost, squat in power for as long as he can, and then leave his country worse off than he found it. And then we'll probably play the same game with his successor.

He is more than mediocre. He is easily the greatest statesman of the present day. He came into power in a country that was nothing but a ruined husk of a former superpower on the brink of civil war. He made an end to internal squabbling and crushed the Chechen terrorists. He turned the economy around and gave the Russians a future again. He stopped the oligarchs and the Jeltsin mafia. He reformed the Russian military and turned Russia into a country worthy of respect again. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours. And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it. Putin's accomplishments in ruling one of the most complicated states in the world certainly are not 'mediocre'. And he certainly has shown a better grasp of realpolitik than other present-day world leaders.
While Russia under Putin still faces many problems *cough*corruption*cough*, progress has been steady, and I am very certain Putin will leave Russia better than when he found it, if only for the reason that leaving it worse wouldn't really be possible.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

You do realise that if we are talking about nuclear war there really is no point in sending any troops.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours. And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it.

A great statesman does not rule through fear.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
He stopped the oligarchs and the Jeltsin mafia.

He did not in any way stop the oligarchs. He imprisoned any dissidents he could find and called them oligarchs, but any oligarch who was willing to pay him the right bribes got to stay right where they are.

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

To be fair that idea of nuking is one of the most slowed things I've read in this thread so far.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

To be fair that idea of nuking is one of the most slowed things I've read in this thread so far.

Yeah... ain't happening.

However, the patently feared Military Industrial Complex® may start revving it's engine again.

A rematch to the coldwar between The West vs The USSR (ahem, I meant Russia).

 whembly wrote:


A rematch to the coldwar between The West vs The USSR (ahem, I meant Russia).

And the only winner will be China as the US and Russia spend themselves into oblivion.

Imagine the left would scream the end of the world if the US rebuilt back to the 10 division/two theater concept after Obama leave office

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


A rematch to the coldwar between The West vs The USSR (ahem, I meant Russia).

And the only winner will be China as the US and Russia spend themselves into oblivion.

Nah... China will be loaning the US to keep the gravy train flowing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Imagine the left would scream the end of the world if the US rebuilt back to the 10 division/two theater concept after Obama leave office

Might not need 10 divisions... but, we probably do need to go back to the "two theater" concept.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sept. 11, 2001. Should have hit them with 5,000 megatons on the same day.

The amusing thing is, that line of thinking makes you as bad as them.

Of course you'll deny it, but there it is.

You seem tohave confused me with someone who gives a damn. After all, its US policy when we are attacked by WMDs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
NATO exist's to stop the europeans from attacking each other. They like to do that as history has amply demonstrated.

I started reading the wiki on the 30 years war. I just had to stop.
On a pro rata % of population wiped out basis, it makes WWII look like a minor tiff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

elotar wrote:
Putin will not invade europe with tank divisions. All baltic states got russian minority witch can be exploited the same way as in Ukrane. Then he will(already is) take control of corrupt or just crasy politicians, crime groups and infrastructure corporations and one day you just wake up in his grasp.

That is a definite scenario. There are ways to deal with that, if NATO has the will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

You do realise that if we are talking about nuclear war there really is no point in sending any troops.

Exactly. American reinforcements are just a 10 second countdown away.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours. And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it.

A great statesman does not rule through fear.

Russian rulers have always ruled through fear.

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.

If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.

squidhills wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
He stopped the oligarchs and the Jeltsin mafia.

He did not in any way stop the oligarchs. He imprisoned any dissidents he could find and called them oligarchs, but any oligarch who was willing to pay him the right bribes got to stay right where they are.

Putin did put an end to the excesses of the Jeltsin era and also broke the political power of the oligarchs. Most of the oligarchs that refused support Putin have met their end in tragic "accident"...

Off topic




On Topic

Ukraine Army recruiting?

 Jihadin wrote:
Off topic




On Topic

Ukraine Army recruiting?

Now thats entertainment! I suddenly understand Putin's interest in Ukraine's...natural resources.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours. And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it.

A great statesman does not rule through fear.

Russian rulers have always ruled through fear.

Hence why none of them have ever been considered great

I mean come on Brezhnev? He stagnated the russian economy whilst he gave himself every medal under the sun and tried to make his own cult of personality

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
the Soviets only suffered relatively light casualties.

Light casualties? No. just, no.

The Soviet lost around 28,000 troops, 53,753 were wounded and 415,932 became critically sick. These are not light numbers.

28.000? Most sources list 14.000-15.000. Either way they are relatively light casualties.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those 1,551,038 men are divided over many small national armies with only a limited amount of cooperation. And judging from the difficulty the EU has with even setting up small military missions, most of those are far from battle-ready.

This is all nonsense. Do you even have a source for this?

Just read the Dutch news EU politicians tend to have to talk endlessly before making decisions, and even if they do, the military is so undermanned and lacking in funds it takes them a long time to get stuff done.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Meanwhile, Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling. They will have covered a huge amount of territory before Europe will be able to put up an effective resistance.

I am beginning to think that, at this point, you’re just throwing words around without any validity to them.

BLITZKRIEG!!! Also, I like tanks.
The numbers is just stuff I found on the news. You can find it if you google around somewhat.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And American soldiers are not that great of a help when they are an ocean away. It will take a lot of time before they will arrive.

American troops are stationed several places around Europe, notably Germany.

Indeed they are. Such a huge army. I am sure the Russians find those few Americans stationed in Germany very threatening.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Should Russia attack NATO, it is likely China will take its chance as well and invade US allies in the Far East.

It's not within China’s interest to start a war against the US. China has invested millions of credits in the US and other western countries. Besides, China and Russia aren’t best buddies for life. Are the Chinese really going throw away all they have accomplished for the sake of a suicidal Russian president’s illegal war? I personally doubt it.

They will make it their own war. There is no love lost between the Chinese and the Americans and their allies in the Far East, and winning said war would mean China gets rid of the hated US influence in the region while establishing itself firmly as the #1 regional and world superpower. China could gain a lot in such a war. Much more than it could ever gain from investments in the US. The Chinese have been pursueing a policy of confrontation for some years now, while strenghtening (military) ties with Russia. China and the Soviet Union were at odds. China and the Russian Federation like each other very, very much. There was a large joint Chinese-Russian military drill only a few weeks ago.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is only logical. Look at large-scale convential wars of the past. Weapons have only gotten deadlier since then. It is actually a pretty conservative estimate.

I don’t trust your sense of “logic”. So far, you’ve have said many fanciful things in this thread. Please excuse me for remaining ever wary of your claims.

Besides, the Russians are far more likely to be the ones suffering the most casualties, since they have to operate in lands unfamiliar and hostile to them and their opponents are dug in and only need to hold out for reinforcements, while the Russians must work against the clock.

That means we can shake hands.

The Russians will have the advantage of speed and superior local force. They could strike before their opponents are dug in. My guess is that they could reach at least Berlin before being pushed back. The war will then likely come to a stalemate at some point, with Russia losing out in the end because its economy is so much weaker.
In any case, making predictions about war is not all that useful, as war depends on so many uncertain factors. And in this case it is even more useless because there won't be war.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But many others do, and I am sure most of them would put the safety of their children over Estonia.

You can’t make that claim. You don’t know what other people feel and think about such things.

Use common sense.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think most Europeans disagree with you. At least, almost all Europeans I know, and I know a lot of

You know a lot of them? Like, all 700 million of them? I take it you don’t.

Where did I claim so?

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why are you willing to die in a war you don't want?

Why are you so willing to throw the Baltics to the wolves? Do you not have any compassion for other people? Or are you just fine with seeing humans of other nationalities suffer, just as long it isn’t your glories motherland that is being threatened?

I don’t want war, nor do I want to die. But I do want the Estonians and the other Baltics to live their lives peacefully. They deserve it after what they have been through under the forced communist rule. Besides, I couldn’t give damn about the Kremlin’s falls sense of entitlement. Not matter what Putin might think, Eastern Europe is not his to dominate.

You misspelled 'Glorious Motherland' (and both must be capitalised for the Glory of the Motherland is great ) You will now be sentenced to 20 years of forced labour in the coal mines of Vorkuta.

I too want the people of the Baltics (and all others) to live their lives peacefully, but I take an utilitarian view here. Starting a war over it will only lead to even less people being able to live peaceful lives. Besides that, I am just not willing to sacrifice my live for a far-away people I don't know.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If I may ask a question to you: Why should Europe support a fellow NATO country?

Because NATO is a collective defense system. All NATO members are allies with each other, and as such, a declaration of war against one NATO member means war with all other members of NATO.

This link should help you out with your understanding of what NATO is about.
http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

I know what NATO is. I just think it is stupid. NATO has the potential of escalating a minor regional conflict into World War 3 and is therefore a threat to world peace. It will be WW1 all over again thanks to NATO. Who wants a World War again?

 Redcruisair wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
NATO has become a threat to world peace now that it is no longer kept in balance by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Cold War isn’t exactly what I would define as peaceful.
Europe has never been more peaceful since the disbanding of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The only threat to Europe’s peace other than terrorism is the Kremlin’s hysteric paranoia of being encircled.

I've heard the Balkan Wars were very peaceful indeed. The great massacres and genocides there were nothing compared to all the scary language and military show-offs during the Cold War in Europe.
And if the NATO wasn't so actively trying to encircle Russia, the Kremlin would not need to be hysteric about it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours. And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it.

A great statesman does not rule through fear.

Russian rulers have always ruled through fear.

Hence why none of them have ever been considered great

I mean come on Brezhnev? He stagnated the russian economy whilst he gave himself every medal under the sun and tried to make his own cult of personality

Russia has had plenty of great statesmen (some were even so great they got it added to their name ) but Brezhnev surely wasn't one of them. The only reason Brezhnev was great is because of all the jokes about him. They are great.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sept. 11, 2001. Should have hit them with 5,000 megatons on the same day.

The amusing thing is, that line of thinking makes you as bad as them.

Of course you'll deny it, but there it is.

You seem tohave confused me with someone who gives a damn. After all, its US policy when we are attacked by WMDs.

It's a different way to go and it did make me laugh out loud at you so, cool.

The Russians will have the advantage of speed and superior local force. They could strike before their opponents are dug in.

Hard to do that when you're radioactive ash. Again I cite NATO policy. Tactical nukes...away!

Then your guys strike back

Then we raise the game

then everybody dies!

"The only way to win is to not play the game."

 Frazzled wrote:

The Russians will have the advantage of speed and superior local force. They could strike before their opponents are dug in.

Hard to do that when you're radioactive ash. Again I cite NATO policy. Tactical nukes...away!

Then your guys strike back

Then we raise the game

then everybody dies!

"The only way to win is to not play the game."

Let the missiles fly

The Chinese wouldn't start a war with the US because they dearly love owning our debt. A war would mean all that debt goes away.

Plus the Chinese economy would fall apart if they lost all their customers(they've got a big bubble)

Its why they're desperate to build a domestic market for their goods in case things go sour for them in the global one.

Yeah, it is not in Chinas interest at all to start a war with the western world.

They don't care whether Russia wants some little countries in Europe, they have to keep their economy going and without sales to Europe and North America....

Oh man Missile Command. Thats my second favorite video game.

The US servicemen in Europe might not be able to stop Russia if they committed to a large scale invasion. But god help the Russians if they killed those servicemen. Everyone derides the US as weak and disunified, but everyone sane - hopefully including Putin - realizes we are one great tragedy away from flipping into straight up Vengeance Death mode. If the US ever fully pulled out the stops and got really mad - screw everything else, we need to end you mad - well, I wouldn't want to be on the other side. The whole sleeping giant quote, but even worse nowadays.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And does this quote by a long dead British politician reflect the attitude towards war of the modern British people? Is waging a war in the Baltics in their interests? Or only in the interests of the British government? Will the British people allow their government to wage a war against Russia for the Baltics, thereby endangering Britain itself?

The full context of the quote goes on to list what those interests are, and all are based upon potential existential threats to Britain. One of them is simple, that no hostile power should ever be permitted to hold the opposite shore of the Channel. The second, the idea that no other power should be permitted to have a Navy greater than Britain, is somewhat outdated now thanks to the US. The idea behind that one is that no potential enemy/ally should ever have the power to invade Britain or cut off her valuable trade arteries.

The final one, and the one applicable in this question, is that no nation should ever be allowed to possess the balance of power in Europe. A country like that could easily overwhelm/outbuild/outspend the Royal Navy, no matter our shipbuilding or military expertise. It's a question of direct existential threat. A Russia which absorbs the Baltics with no opposition would shortly be reabsorbing Belarus and Kazakhstan. And would then probably head into Poland.

If the assumption here is that NATO falls apart, and the treaties do not hold, there is no single power in Europe capable of standing against Russia currently bar ourselves. And that's solely because we have one fecking big moat without a drawbridge.

Therefore, we must ensure the treaties hold, and that Russia does not become the dominant power, through whatever coalition we must forge. There's a reason we used to flip enemies/allies every other decade a century or so ago.

Carrier fleets are not that fast. And I doubt a D-day style operation would still be a sound decision in the present day. The entire American/British force gathered in one place at the same time... They would be a very tempting target for Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Ridiculous. The second Russia wiped out half a million american soldiers with nukes would be the day Russia would point blank cease to exist. The French, Britain, and America would wipe it off the map. Most of the rest of us would cease to exist too, but c'est la vie. If Russia wants to play with toys like that, then the consequences are inevitable.

War has too many uncertaint factors to predict the outcome as certainly as that.

Certainly. But it's a reasonable educated guess from someone with a reasonable amount of military/strategical knowledge. If you disagree I would be interested to hear your own predictions, and any evidence you might have to support them.

He is more than mediocre. He is easily the greatest statesman of the present day.

That's really not saying much even if I agreed with you. Being the greatest statesman in the current day is like being a champion boxer in a ring of triple amputees for the most part. Putin is a mediocre statesman in a sea of bad and equally mediocre statesmen.

Shinzo Abe probably gets a 7.5/10 on the 'Great Statesman' chart, but I'd give Putin a measly 6 on the same scale. About the same level as Obama or John Major. It could be worse though, he could be sitting with Gordon Brown down at the bottom.

He came into power in a country that was nothing but a ruined husk of a former superpower on the brink of civil war. He made an end to internal squabbling and crushed the Chechen terrorists. He turned the economy around and gave the Russians a future again. He stopped the oligarchs and the Jeltsin mafia. He reformed the Russian military and turned Russia into a country worthy of respect again. A country that once more incites fear in its neighbours

I'm not sure dictatorial and murderous tendencies necessarily equal 'Great Statesman'. Perhaps we're working from different textbooks. To me, a real top statesman is politically sharp as a knife and clever as a fox domestically, internationally renowned and respected (if not necessarily liked), capable of advancing their countries interests with a long term strategical vision, and plays a major role on the international stage.

Putin's sly as a weasel, more internationally infamous than renowned, and fixated on the medium-term objectives rather than long term ones. He is respected generally speaking, which gives him points, and he plays a minor role internationally (although looms larger if you live in the Ukraine I suspect). In short, he doesn't fare too badly, but he's no Roosevelt or Bismarck.

And that is exactly how Putin and his many supporters would like to see it. Putin's accomplishments in ruling one of the most complicated states in the world certainly are not 'mediocre'.

Really? I mean, Robert Mugabe 'rules' Zimbabwe through similar tactics. 'Ruling' is not the same as 'leading' or 'directing'. The truly great Statesman does the latter. Putin has an iron fist, sure. But he lacks the velvet glove the truly great possess.

And he certainly has shown a better grasp of realpolitik than other present-day world leaders.

Some of them, certainly. Definitely moreso than Obama, or Hollande. But I'd bet on Merkel against Putin when it comes to subtlety anyday. Putin's at about the same level as Cameron. He's got a solid grasp of the basics, but not much beyond that.

While Russia under Putin still faces many problems *cough*corruption*cough*, progress has been steady, and I am very certain Putin will leave Russia better than when he found it, if only for the reason that leaving it worse wouldn't really be possible.

Debatable. If he ends up misjudging it and leaving it a smoking wreck due to pushing his luck with NATO, I'd consider that 'worse'. Not that I think he'd be stupid enough to push it that far, but it illustrates how such a thing is possible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, it is not in Chinas interest at all to start a war with the western world.

They don't care whether Russia wants some little countries in Europe, they have to keep their economy going and without sales to Europe and North America....

China has always played a long term game. It's culturally ingrained, as is the tendency to view China as 'The World', and everything outside it as uncultured barbarians at the gates. China wants local dominance, but quite frankly doesn't care beyond that. So they're content to bide their time and build up slowly in an inscrutable sort of way. They're certainly less worrying that the Russians, historically speaking.

 Ketara wrote:

If the assumption here is that NATO falls apart, and the treaties do not hold, there is no single power in Europe capable of standing against Russia currently bar ourselves. And that's solely because we have one fecking big moat without a drawbridge.
.

Except somebody tunneled under the moat

Ridiculous. The second Russia wiped out half a million american soldiers with nukes would be the day Russia would point blank cease to exist. The French, Britain, and America would wipe it off the map. Most of the rest of us would cease to exist too, but c'est la vie. If Russia wants to play with toys like that, then the consequences are inevitable.

So if things turn bad we'll kill ourselves eh?. Thats not Ridiculous at all.

Being the greatest statesman in the current day is like being a champion boxer in a ring of triple amputees for the most part. Putin is a mediocre statesman in a sea of bad and equally mediocre statesmen.

This is so true.

China has always played a long term game. It's culturally ingrained, as is the tendency to view China as 'The World', and everything outside it as uncultured barbarians at the gates. China wants local dominance, but quite frankly doesn't care beyond that. So they're content to bide their time and build up slowly in an inscrutable sort of way. They're certainly less worrying than the Russians, historically speaking.

Because they're on course to own the world. They already own most of it's manufacturing.