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.

 Tyran wrote:
No idea, and no one wants to push enough to find out.

Remember though the difference.

The doctrine of MAD doesn't work in a world where a theocracy gets the Bomb.

"You only have three nukes. We have 300. Nuke us and we'll bring about the end of the world."

"Yes!" pushes the Button.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
No idea, and no one wants to push enough to find out.

Remember though the difference.

The doctrine of MAD doesn't work in a world where a theocracy gets the Bomb.

"You only have three nukes. We have 300. Nuke us and we'll bring about the end of the world."

"Yes!" pushes the Button.

Not sure what is your point.

xraytango wrote:

Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?

I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.

Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?

There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.

Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.

Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.

How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Japan.

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

As for what does a war with China look like? A lot of it will take place in the cyber-sphere. China is pretty good at understanding asymmetrical warfare and is investing in capabilities designed to combat US weaknesses and defend against US strengths, not all are traditional military capabilities.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Japan.

Japan either gets some nukes or they would be boned on the long term.

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.

The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.

The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.

It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.

In other words, war.

 Ketara wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?

I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.

Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?

There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.

Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.

Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.

The patient warrior sits idly by the river, knowing in the fullness of time, the dead bodies of his enemies will float by.

China waits for America to destroy itself. North Korea may start something that escalates though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ukraine crisis: Fierce fighting after Minsk peace deall
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31449981

Intense fighting has been reported in eastern Ukraine, a day after a peace deal was reached in Minsk.

The fiercest battles were over control of the town of Debaltseve, a strategic town in between rebel-held areas.

The group responsible for monitoring the ceasefire, due to start at midnight on Saturday, says there is still "quite serious live fire" in several areas.

European leaders have warned Russia that it faces additional sanctions if the Minsk agreement is not respected.

BBC journalists in Donetsk heard new shelling on Friday morning, though they said it sounded less intense than in recent days.

Luhansk also came under bombardment overnight - with Russian TV reporting some of the heaviest fighting there in months.

But Ukraine's army said the most ferocious fighting centred on Debaltseve, a railway junction where rebels have besieged government troops in a last-ditch effort to win the town.

"The enemy continues to build up forces in the main areas of the armed conflict. The most tense situation is near Debaltseve," military spokesman Andriy Lysenko told reporters.

Ukrainian troops rumbled towards the town of Debaltseve on Friday where fighting continues to rage

Women embrace as they wait for a bus, carrying evacuees to Russia, to leave Donetsk

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Japan.

Or Korea

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Japan.

Or Korea

Or Taiwan.

 Ketara wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.

The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.

The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.

It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.

In other words, war.

I expect China to win that one, they have the home advantage.

 Tyran wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
No idea, and no one wants to push enough to find out.

Remember though the difference.

The doctrine of MAD doesn't work in a world where a theocracy gets the Bomb.

"You only have three nukes. We have 300. Nuke us and we'll bring about the end of the world."

"Yes!" pushes the Button.

Not sure what is your point.

Parties will be getting the bomb shortly that really want to push enough to find out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?

I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.

Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?

There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.

Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.

Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.

No. A war with China and the US would be a similar nuke war very quickly.
(which is why the US needs to get neutral sooner rather than later).

We've had one war with China. Thats enough thank you.

 Tyran wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
How would a war between China and USA happen?

China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.

Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.

The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.

The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.

It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.

In other words, war.

I expect China to win that one, they have the home advantage.

As things stand right now, China would get hammered if they stepped out of line.

In fifteen years with four carrier fleets? They would still get hammered.

What matters is whether or not they maintain their current trend. The current military spending of China is at $131 billion (2% of GDP) as compared to $640 billion (3.8% of GDP) in the US, $48.6 billion(1% of GDP) in Japan and $33.9 billion(2.8% of GDP) in South Korea. If China maintains it's current rate of increase in defence funding, it will achieve dollar parity with the US in about 15-20 years.

If China decides in fifteen years time that they have the budget to build another six carrier fleets, they will have the resources, both in shipbuilding expertise and cash, to launch them within a further ten years. Assuming that America maintains its current level of strength at ten carrier fleets (which is not a given) that's a close match. Given that any fighting would take place within range of Chinese airpower and missile strikes, any conflict between the two would be ruinous for the US in terms of lives and material, and absorb most the of the USA's naval capabilities.

Fortunately, things don't take place in a vaccum, and neither Japan nor South Korea plan on being easy marks. The US has been placing pressure on the Japanese to rearm of late to help balance the figures (both in military and financial terms), resulting in the Izumo class 'Helicopter' carriers (which could easily take VTOL aircraft). If they work together, they should be able to contain China for a goodly time to come.

The real question is whether China will accept that, or keep increasing spending past that point. If China continues to perceive itself as a victim of the west/Japan, it would undoubtedly get more and more muscular as time progresses, and keep jacking up the defence spending and throwing it's weight around. And that would be a sure recipe for conflict.

 loki old fart wrote:

The patient warrior sits idly by the river, knowing in the fullness of time, the dead bodies of his enemies will float by.

Thank you, Sun Tzu.

 CptJake wrote:

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.

Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.

What.the.actual.feth?

Seriously, I hate to say this, but "In dictatorship Ukraine, police protest YOU!"

wat

Hey man... looks cold there. Maybe they're starting up a bonfire.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31495099

Well, to absolutely no one's surprise, the cease fire is heading into the toilet already and further sanctions have begun against Russia.

China VS US, maybe in 50 or 100 years but definently no time soon

 BaronIveagh wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31495099

Well, to absolutely no one's surprise, the cease fire is heading into the toilet already and further sanctions have begun against Russia.

They imposed the extra sanctions before the ceasefire broke. Almost as If they knew.

 loki old fart wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31495099

Well, to absolutely no one's surprise, the cease fire is heading into the toilet already and further sanctions have begun against Russia.

They imposed the extra sanctions before the ceasefire broke. Almost as If they knew.

Or almost as if the sanctions have nothing to do with the ceasefire...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

The patient warrior sits idly by the river, knowing in the fullness of time, the dead bodies of his enemies will float by.

Thank you, Sun Tzu.

The Patient warrior gets eaten by ants after he falls asleep. Later, thieves will go through his pockets.

PhantomViper wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31495099

Well, to absolutely no one's surprise, the cease fire is heading into the toilet already and further sanctions have begun against Russia.

They imposed the extra sanctions before the ceasefire broke. Almost as If they knew.

Or almost as if the sanctions have nothing to do with the ceasefire...

Indeed

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.

Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.

The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.

Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.

The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.

It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:

Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.

Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.

The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.

It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:

Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.

Or it could stop bullying its neighbors. They haven't joined NATO without reason, after all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.

And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.

Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.

Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.

Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.

The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.

It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:

Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.

Or it could stop bullying its neighbors. They haven't joined NATO without reason, after all.

Yes, that is the other side.
But the reality is that Russia is a great power and its neighbours are not. How would the US feel if Venezuela and Cuba somehow started a military alliance to counter US interests and got most of South America in it, and then suddenly Mexico and Canada announce they want to join too. I imagine the US wouldn't be too amused if such a thing happened. And here the situation is complicated by the fact that those territories are former Russian territories and still have large ethnic Russian populations. What about them? Are they not important? Do their opinions and wish to be reunited with Russia not count?

We'd make a really epic 80s movie about it, and then unleash Reagan.

Oh wait, that actually happened.


Seriously though, I actually agree with you. We had no business extending NATO. Frankly we should have ended NATO at that point.

 Frazzled wrote:
We'd make a really epic 80s movie about it, and then unleash Reagan.

Oh wait, that actually happened.


Seriously though, I actually agree with you. We had no business extending NATO. Frankly we should have ended NATO at that point.

frazzled, STOP THAT. Your talking sense, and now I'm all confused.