I'd go with the EU.Â
Who would win in a hypothetical war between Russia and the EU?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="deeliman"]The quote sound more like counter-intel and mis-information for which the Russians are very well known for. Think about it, why would any self-respecting world power let something like this slip into the mass media.If you actually took the time to look it up, you would find that a lot of the things he says about the Russian army are still true.[QUOTE="muscleserge"] Can you source that, cause the words from Putin's mouth are quite different. The above statement would be correct about 15 years ago, today is a whole different story. http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russia-implements-its-most-radical-military-reform-in-200-years-201380-eng.html Still a fairly recent quote.
Also consider the fact that Europe and its countries have a long history together, and any European knows not to fvk with Russia.Â
The EU isn't a military force some people make it out to be, many countries have 0 military experiance, Please tell me about all the recent military experience that the Russian army has. and Europe was a stomping ground for a conflict between the Americans and the SU for a long time and even the Americans knew/know now that Europe won't stand a chance in a Russian Invasion, That might have been true in the cold war, but not today. in fact NATO is still trying to encircle Russia, NATO hasn't really been afraid of Russia for quite some time now. if the EU could stand up to the Russians on their own, they wouldn't be kissing American ass for about 70 years now. Any examples of recent butkissing of the Europeans?muscleserge
Recent Russian military experience? How about Afghanistan, I wouldn't count a war that took place in the 80's as recent war experience. Chechen Wars, Kosovo, Georgia, etc. Even if you lose you still learn from the experience and improve, plus all the wars listed apart from Georgia were unconventional wars, with lots of foreign funding. Russia learned all too well from the experience, experience which the EU countries lack. How about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Plenty of war experience right there.
How do you figure that NATO isn't afraid of Russia, all evidence points to the opposite. In fact Georgia suffered because of this. I mean that the combined might of NATO far surpasses russian might.
Are you seriously asking me of examples of the EU kissing American ass?
Ok, how about the most recent one, the Bolivian President's trip back home, this is an example of EU countries not kissing ass, but bending over and taking one up with a smile, shows whos really the boss doesn't it. Bolivia is in South America..... Or how about the whole UK foreign policy, it might as well say, listen to the master in big bold letters.Â
The quote sound more like counter-intel and mis-information for which the Russians are very well known for. Think about it, why would any self-respecting world power let something like this slip into the mass media.If you actually took the time to look it up, you would find that a lot of the things he says about the Russian army are still true.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]
deeliman
Recent Russian military experience? How about Afghanistan, I wouldn't count a war that took place in the 80's as recent war experience. Chechen Wars, Kosovo, Georgia, etc. Even if you lose you still learn from the experience and improve, plus all the wars listed apart from Georgia were unconventional wars, with lots of foreign funding. Russia learned all too well from the experience, experience which the EU countries lack. How about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Plenty of war experience right there.
How do you figure that NATO isn't afraid of Russia, all evidence points to the opposite. In fact Georgia suffered because of this. I mean that the combined might of NATO far surpasses russian might.
Are you seriously asking me of examples of the EU kissing American ass?
Ok, how about the most recent one, the Bolivian President's trip back home, this is an example of EU countries not kissing ass, but bending over and taking one up with a smile, shows whos really the boss doesn't it. Bolivia is in South America..... Or how about the whole UK foreign policy, it might as well say, listen to the master in big bold letters. How would you know the current state of the Russian military, how can you say that some aspects still apply? Like what? Bolivia could be in Africa and it would still make my point valid, How many EU nations closed off their air space to a president of a sovereign nation at the orders from Washington. If NATO is so unafraid then why would they want Georgia then, or any other former eastern block country, why not just stop. Please don't use the EU nations involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as proof of military experiance, especially compared to the ones I mentioned. They involvement is so small that it almost doesn't even register on the map.
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]
Absolutely nothing that you said in your post was factual.Barbariser
E.U will dissolve in less than 10 years. E.U. is not united - rich nations hate the poor ones who are dragging down the euro and bringing legions of poor people. Germany and Uk are the only countries with a sizeable force. You know nothing of Russian military capabilities.
You know nothing about anything, period. For one thing, the primary benefactors of a weak Euro and cheap labour? Those rich nations you just mentioned. Germany's military is actually smaller and weaker than France and the total military force of the European Union greatly exceeds that of Russia. Also, rofl at the idea that any E.U. nation is going to run into the arms of Russia, a nation well-known for being a huge bully towards less powerful countries. I think you should reread my post again, you didn't get the point, and judging by your response you're not even close. When did I ever even mention the Warsaw pact? Especially to claim advantage for the Russians. If cold war were to turn hot, Europe would be the stomping ground, how is this even still argued? EU kisses american ass all the time, I already brought up the example with the Bolivian president.
How would you know the current state of the Russian military, how can you say that some aspects still apply? Like what? Bolivia could be in Africa and it would still make my point valid, How many EU nations closed off their air space to a president of a sovereign nation at the orders from Washington. If NATO is so unafraid then why would they want Georgia then, or any other former eastern block country, why not just stop. The US and the EU/Europe are in a pretty tight alliance for half a century, they will help each other. Also a few days ago NATO started flexing it's muscles to invade Syria and Russia doesn't seem to offer much resistance even though it supports the Syrian regime. So yeah. Much resistance? So sending in arms and warships isn't resistance? Vetos in the Security Council aren't resistance? Threats of retaliation aren't resistance? What constitutes resistance to you? Tight alliance? LOL. Please don't be so naive, Washington speaks, the EU barks, now thats a tight alliance for you. LoL[QUOTE="consoletroll"]
Yes, it's not like the EU has winter fighting ability or anything right?
And Sino-Soviet split, China giving support to the Mujaheddin in the Soviet Afghan War, increasing cooperation between the West and China etc. etc. etc., while Vietnam is barely worth mentioning.[QUOTE="consoletroll"]chaplainDMK
[QUOTE="deeliman"]How would you know the current state of the Russian military, how can you say that some aspects still apply? Like what? Bolivia could be in Africa and it would still make my point valid, How many EU nations closed off their air space to a president of a sovereign nation at the orders from Washington. If NATO is so unafraid then why would they want Georgia then, or any other former eastern block country, why not just stop. Please don't use the EU nations involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as proof of military experiance, especially compared to the ones I mentioned. They involvement is so small that it almost doesn't even register on the map. The US and the EU/Europe are in a pretty tight alliance for half a century, they will help each other. Also a few days ago NATO started flexing it's muscles to invade Syria and Russia doesn't seem to offer much resistance even though it supports the Syrian regime. So yeah. P.S I hate Gamespot, deleted a good portion of my post. this is what I managed to salvage.[QUOTE="muscleserge"] The quote sound more like counter-intel and mis-information for which the Russians are very well known for. Think about it, why would any self-respecting world power let something like this slip into the mass media.If you actually took the time to look it up, you would find that a lot of the things he says about the Russian army are still true.
Recent Russian military experience? How about Afghanistan, I wouldn't count a war that took place in the 80's as recent war experience. Chechen Wars, Kosovo, Georgia, etc. Even if you lose you still learn from the experience and improve, plus all the wars listed apart from Georgia were unconventional wars, with lots of foreign funding. Russia learned all too well from the experience, experience which the EU countries lack. How about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Plenty of war experience right there.
How do you figure that NATO isn't afraid of Russia, all evidence points to the opposite. In fact Georgia suffered because of this. I mean that the combined might of NATO far surpasses russian might.
Are you seriously asking me of examples of the EU kissing American ass?
Ok, how about the most recent one, the Bolivian President's trip back home, this is an example of EU countries not kissing ass, but bending over and taking one up with a smile, shows whos really the boss doesn't it. Bolivia is in South America..... Or how about the whole UK foreign policy, it might as well say, listen to the master in big bold letters. muscleserge
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]The US and the EU/Europe are in a pretty tight alliance for half a century, they will help each other. Also a few days ago NATO started flexing it's muscles to invade Syria and Russia doesn't seem to offer much resistance even though it supports the Syrian regime. So yeah. Much resistance? So sending in arms and warships isn't resistance? Vetos in the Security Council aren't resistance? Threats of retaliation aren't resistance? What constitutes resistance to you? Tight alliance? LOL. Please don't be so naive, Washington speaks, the EU barks, now thats a tight alliance for you. LoL Now it's packing up and leaving last time I checked. And yeah, that's what the EU did for when Russia is being a bully, and you don't constitute that as resistance, while when Russia does it it's being a big brave hero by your logic. Notice how Russia won't bully anything that's affiliated with the EU or NATO but only it's former slave states. If NATO invades Syria Russia will pull out and run away with it's tail between it's legs. If Georgia is accepted into NATO or something along those lines Russia will pack up and leave.Â[QUOTE="consoletroll"] How would you know the current state of the Russian military, how can you say that some aspects still apply? Like what? Bolivia could be in Africa and it would still make my point valid, How many EU nations closed off their air space to a president of a sovereign nation at the orders from Washington. If NATO is so unafraid then why would they want Georgia then, or any other former eastern block country, why not just stop.muscleserge
And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it?Â
Much resistance? So sending in arms and warships isn't resistance? Vetos in the Security Council aren't resistance? Threats of retaliation aren't resistance? What constitutes resistance to you? Tight alliance? LOL. Please don't be so naive, Washington speaks, the EU barks, now thats a tight alliance for you. LoL Now it's packing up and leaving last time I checked. And yeah, that's what the EU did for when Russia is being a bully, and you don't constitute that as resistance, while when Russia does it it's being a big brave hero by your logic. Notice how Russia won't bully anything that's affiliated with the EU or NATO but only it's former slave states. If NATO invades Syria Russia will pull out and run away with it's tail between it's legs. If Georgia is accepted into NATO or something along those lines Russia will pack up and leave.Â[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] The US and the EU/Europe are in a pretty tight alliance for half a century, they will help each other. Also a few days ago NATO started flexing it's muscles to invade Syria and Russia doesn't seem to offer much resistance even though it supports the Syrian regime. So yeah.
chaplainDMK
And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it?Â
Russia pulled out its civilians, and sent in more supplies, like 30 tons of food, warships, arms, and personnel are soon to follow. Bully? What are you talking about here? Russia spit in the face of Washington just recently, after how many countries were bullied by the Americans not to take in Snowden? Bolivia, Equador, and many more. What did the Americans do about it? Nothing. If Georgia gets into NATO, expect missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other countries in the south who are sympathetic to the Russians. Equal in alliance? Prove it.[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]Now it's packing up and leaving last time I checked. And yeah, that's what the EU did for when Russia is being a bully, and you don't constitute that as resistance, while when Russia does it it's being a big brave hero by your logic. Notice how Russia won't bully anything that's affiliated with the EU or NATO but only it's former slave states. If NATO invades Syria Russia will pull out and run away with it's tail between it's legs. If Georgia is accepted into NATO or something along those lines Russia will pack up and leave.Â[QUOTE="muscleserge"] Much resistance? So sending in arms and warships isn't resistance? Vetos in the Security Council aren't resistance? Threats of retaliation aren't resistance? What constitutes resistance to you? Tight alliance? LOL. Please don't be so naive, Washington speaks, the EU barks, now thats a tight alliance for you. LoLmuscleserge
And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it?Â
Russia pulled out its civilians, and sent in more supplies, like 30 tons of food, warships, arms, and personnel are soon to follow. Bully? What are you talking about here? Russia spit in the face of Washington just recently, after how many countries were bullied by the Americans not to take in Snowden? Bolivia, Equador, and many more. What did the Americans do about it? Nothing. If Georgia gets into NATO, expect missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other countries in the south who are sympathetic to the Russians. Equal in alliance? Prove it.That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
Russia pulled out its civilians, and sent in more supplies, like 30 tons of food, warships, arms, and personnel are soon to follow. Bully? What are you talking about here? Russia spit in the face of Washington just recently, after how many countries were bullied by the Americans not to take in Snowden? Bolivia, Equador, and many more. What did the Americans do about it? Nothing. If Georgia gets into NATO, expect missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other countries in the south who are sympathetic to the Russians. Equal in alliance? Prove it.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Now it's packing up and leaving last time I checked. And yeah, that's what the EU did for when Russia is being a bully, and you don't constitute that as resistance, while when Russia does it it's being a big brave hero by your logic. Notice how Russia won't bully anything that's affiliated with the EU or NATO but only it's former slave states. If NATO invades Syria Russia will pull out and run away with it's tail between it's legs. If Georgia is accepted into NATO or something along those lines Russia will pack up and leave.Â
And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it?Â
chaplainDMK
That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are.[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="muscleserge"] Russia pulled out its civilians, and sent in more supplies, like 30 tons of food, warships, arms, and personnel are soon to follow. Bully? What are you talking about here? Russia spit in the face of Washington just recently, after how many countries were bullied by the Americans not to take in Snowden? Bolivia, Equador, and many more. What did the Americans do about it? Nothing. If Georgia gets into NATO, expect missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other countries in the south who are sympathetic to the Russians. Equal in alliance? Prove it.muscleserge
That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are.Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?
There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.
If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.
Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.
[QUOTE="Tessellation"]the minute EU even tries something they will have incoming nukes coming from Russia to every of their main cities :lol:deelimanAre you able to read? what do you want me to read?
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="muscleserge"] Russia pulled out its civilians, and sent in more supplies, like 30 tons of food, warships, arms, and personnel are soon to follow. Bully? What are you talking about here? Russia spit in the face of Washington just recently, after how many countries were bullied by the Americans not to take in Snowden? Bolivia, Equador, and many more. What did the Americans do about it? Nothing. If Georgia gets into NATO, expect missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other countries in the south who are sympathetic to the Russians. Equal in alliance? Prove it.muscleserge
That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. You mean like how the EU has nukes and the US SSBN's around Russia? And the only reason the US is getting involved is because it has allies nearby. It wouldn't give a flying **** about it if it wasn't next to Turkey. Just like it doesn't give a flying **** about anything that isn't close to one of it's allies.the minute EU even tries something they will have incoming nukes coming from Russia to every of their main cities :lol:TessellationGoes both ways, we're not talking about total Armageddon, it's limited to conventional war. We know it's next to impossible, but it's a hypothetical situation where nukes aren't used. Discuss.
[QUOTE="Tessellation"]the minute EU even tries something they will have incoming nukes coming from Russia to every of their main cities :lol:chaplainDMKGoes both ways, we're not talking about total Armageddon, it's limited to conventional war. We know it's next to impossible, but it's a hypothetical situation where nukes aren't used. Discuss. well many nations against just one is quite unfair tho..
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. You mean like how the EU has nukes and the US SSBN's around Russia? And the only reason the US is getting involved is because it has allies nearby. It wouldn't give a flying **** about it if it wasn't next to Turkey. Just like it doesn't give a flying **** about anything that isn't close to one of it's allies. The US is getting involved because if Iran and not its allies. The US interest is the petrodollar. Assad isn't a threat to Europe, never was. Do some more reading please.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]
That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
chaplainDMK
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="Tessellation"]the minute EU even tries something they will have incoming nukes coming from Russia to every of their main cities :lol:TessellationGoes both ways, we're not talking about total Armageddon, it's limited to conventional war. We know it's next to impossible, but it's a hypothetical situation where nukes aren't used. Discuss. well many nations against just one is quite unfair tho..
I'm sure Hitler would agree
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are.[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]
That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...
Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.
There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.
And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.
Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough.Â
deeliman
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?
There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.
If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.
Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="muscleserge"] Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable. If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region. Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are.muscleserge
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?
There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.
If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.
Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.
Source? Can't people google anymore? So, you don't have one.
So if France and the UK didn't have Nukes they wouldn't be on the council as well? You're comparing apples to oranges here.
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]
Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?
There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.
If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.
Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.deeliman
Source? Can't people google anymore? So, you don't have one.
So if France and the UK didn't have Nukes they wouldn't be on the council as well? You're comparing apples to oranges here.
1st page on google http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/23/syria-crisis-russian-military-presence Apples to oranges, you claimed that the reason Russia is on the security council is cause of Nukes, so why are countries that are much much weaker than the major powers on it? You obviously don't know what you are talking about here, so please do some homework, you seem to lack even the basic knowledge of the Syrian conflict, and it sweems like all you know is what you heard on CNN.[QUOTE="deeliman"]1st page on google http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/23/syria-crisis-russian-military-presence Apples to oranges, you claimed that the reason Russia is on the security council is cause of Nukes, so why are countries that are much much weaker than the major powers on it? You obviously don't know what you are talking about here, so please do some homework, you seem to lack even the basic knowledge of the Syrian conflict, and it sweems like all you know is what you heard on CNN. The reason that it's different is because the US needs them as permanent security counsel members. I just wanted you to provide a source for your claims, it has nothing to do with me being supposedly ignorant. And about that CNN statement, I'm not from the US so I don't watch that news source. I am interested though in what you think are good and unbiased news sources, as you have often claimed you get your info from that instead of the "biased western media".[QUOTE="muscleserge"]
Source? Can't people google anymore? So, you don't have one.
So if France and the UK didn't have Nukes they wouldn't be on the council as well? You're comparing apples to oranges here.
muscleserge
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Kevlar101"] The UK is not in Europe.Kevlar101Troll post? Nope. The UK is separate from Europe, even though it IS in the EU, it's still geographically not in Europe. It might be separate from mainland Europe, but it is still part of the continent Europe. Or do you believe the UK is it's own continent?
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Kevlar101"] The UK is not in Europe.Kevlar101Troll post? Nope. The UK is separate from Europe, even though it IS in the EU, it's still geographically not in Europe.
There never used to be a channel between the two. Â You could walk across it.Â
[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]deeliman1st page on google http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/23/syria-crisis-russian-military-presence Apples to oranges, you claimed that the reason Russia is on the security council is cause of Nukes, so why are countries that are much much weaker than the major powers on it? You obviously don't know what you are talking about here, so please do some homework, you seem to lack even the basic knowledge of the Syrian conflict, and it sweems like all you know is what you heard on CNN. The reason that it's different is because the US needs them as permanent security counsel members. I just wanted you to provide a source for your claims, it has nothing to do with me being supposedly ignorant. And about that CNN statement, I'm not from the US so I don't watch that news source. I am interested though in what you think are good and unbiased news sources, as you have often claimed you get your info from that instead of the "biased western media". My sources usually are from the both sides. I would read news about an even from the both sides as well as neutral sides. And if a topic interests me particularly I do further research, like history, policies, etc.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Kevlar101"] The UK is not in Europe.Kevlar101Troll post? Nope. The UK is separate from Europe, even though it IS in the EU, it's still geographically not in Europe. I wonder how Japan will react to being told it isn't a part of Asia.
I think you should reread my post again, you didn't get the point, and judging by your response you're not even close. When did I ever even mention the Warsaw pact? Especially to claim advantage for the Russians. If cold war were to turn hot, Europe would be the stomping ground, how is this even still argued? EU kisses american ass all the time, I already brought up the example with the Bolivian president.muscleserge
You have a really poor memory don't you? Also, all you did was reference a vague incident without linking it or explaining its relevance, and you really need to brush up on your geography because Bolivia is in SOUTH AMERICA.
The EU isn't a military force some people make it out to be, many countries have 0 military experiance, and Europe was a stomping ground for a conflict between the Americans and the SU for a long time and even the Americans knew/know now that Europe won't stand a chance in a Russian Invasion, in fact NATO is still trying to encircle Russia, if the EU could stand up to the Russians on their own, they wouldn't be kissing American ass for about 70 years now.What muscleserge actually posted
Guess what was happening for most of that 70 years? Oh right, the U.S.S.R. existed instead of Russia which is effectively a mere shadow of it, and half of what is now the E.U. was in the Warsaw Pact. It was certainly true that back in that situation the Western Europeans would have lost if left on their own, because the Warsaw Pact had a far larger population, industrial power and military force than Western Europe.
It's most certainly not applicable to today where N.A.T.O. and everyone with half a brain is well aware that the E.U. could handily crush any attempted land invasion. That's why the U.S. no longer bothers stationing huge armies in Europe and also why 90% of E.U. countries can slash their military budgets down to less than 2% of GDP without worrying about their national sovereignty.
Also, rofl at the idea that just because NATO is "tightening the noose" around Russia, this makes Russia some kind of scary threat that could conquer a vastly richer and more populous group of nations by itself. People who actually understand military strategy worth a damn can tell you that increasing your relative strength, building alliances and extending your reach is always a good idea even if nobody can actually seriously threaten you, as it increases your advantage and denies the enemy easy targets. N.A.T.O. didn't absorb tiny post-communist countries like Estonia to protect itself, it did it to protect those countries from Russia.
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Kevlar101"] Nope. The UK is separate from Europe, even though it IS in the EU, it's still geographically not in Europe.Kevlar101It might be separate from mainland Europe, but it is still part of the continent Europe. Or do you believe the UK is it's own continent? You people think that I think the UK is not part of Europe because it shares no land border with European countries? Not what I think at all, I had just always been under the impression that the UK was not a part of Europe. No need to be a jerk. Just a mistake on my part. Where was I being a jerk? I was just correcting you.
Military strength, honestly, is a wash. Russia has a superior air force and the EU has a superior navy. Russia wins through raw numbers/manpower.
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]
I think you should reread my post again, you didn't get the point, and judging by your response you're not even close. When did I ever even mention the Warsaw pact? Especially to claim advantage for the Russians. If cold war were to turn hot, Europe would be the stomping ground, how is this even still argued? EU kisses american ass all the time, I already brought up the example with the Bolivian president.Barbariser
You have a really poor memory don't you? Also, all you did was reference a vague incident without linking it or explaining its relevance, and you really need to brush up on your geography because Bolivia is in SOUTH AMERICA.
The EU isn't a military force some people make it out to be, many countries have 0 military experiance, and Europe was a stomping ground for a conflict between the Americans and the SU for a long time and even the Americans knew/know now that Europe won't stand a chance in a Russian Invasion, in fact NATO is still trying to encircle Russia, if the EU could stand up to the Russians on their own, they wouldn't be kissing American ass for about 70 years now.What muscleserge actually posted
Guess what was happening for most of that 70 years? Oh right, the U.S.S.R. existed instead of Russia which is effectively a mere shadow of it, and half of what is now the E.U. was in the Warsaw Pact. It was certainly true that back in that situation the Western Europeans would have lost if left on their own, because the Warsaw Pact had a far larger population, industrial power and military force than Western Europe.
It's most certainly not applicable to today where N.A.T.O. and everyone with half a brain is well aware that the E.U. could handily crush any attempted land invasion. That's why the U.S. no longer bothers stationing huge armies in Europe and also why 90% of E.U. countries can slash their military budgets down to less than 2% of GDP without worrying about their national sovereignty.
Also, rofl at the idea that just because NATO is "tightening the noose" around Russia, this makes Russia some kind of scary threat that could conquer a vastly richer and more populous group of nations by itself. People who actually understand military strategy worth a damn can tell you that increasing your relative strength, building alliances and extending your reach is always a good idea even if nobody can actually seriously threaten you, as it increases your advantage and denies the enemy easy targets. N.A.T.O. didn't absorb tiny post-communist countries like Estonia to protect itself, it did it to protect those countries from Russia. Vague Incident? it was all over the news, I just thought since you're so knowledgeable, you would know about it. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/05/south-american-leaders-demand-apology-in-bolivian-president-plane-dispute/ Heres a link. The reason that the geography of Bolivia doesn't matter is because Evo Morales was flying across the EU, when all of a sudden he was refused AIR SPACE and HAD TO LAND IN VIENNA. Now I am not aware of any conflicts between the EU and Bolivia, so why exactly did these "none-ass-kissing" EU nations refuse air-space to a president of a sovereign, none-enemy nation. BTW I am perfectly aware of the fact that Bolivia is in South America. but Bolivian geography HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. Now would you mind answering the question, and not just point out the fact that Bolivia is in South America.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]
You have a really poor memory don't you? Also, all you did was reference a vague incident without linking it or explaining its relevance, and you really need to brush up on your geography because Bolivia is in SOUTH AMERICA.
[QUOTE="What muscleserge actually posted"]The EU isn't a military force some people make it out to be, many countries have 0 military experiance, and Europe was a stomping ground for a conflict between the Americans and the SU for a long time and even the Americans knew/know now that Europe won't stand a chance in a Russian Invasion, in fact NATO is still trying to encircle Russia, if the EU could stand up to the Russians on their own, they wouldn't be kissing American ass for about 70 years now.muscleserge
Guess what was happening for most of that 70 years? Oh right, the U.S.S.R. existed instead of Russia which is effectively a mere shadow of it, and half of what is now the E.U. was in the Warsaw Pact. It was certainly true that back in that situation the Western Europeans would have lost if left on their own, because the Warsaw Pact had a far larger population, industrial power and military force than Western Europe.
It's most certainly not applicable to today where N.A.T.O. and everyone with half a brain is well aware that the E.U. could handily crush any attempted land invasion. That's why the U.S. no longer bothers stationing huge armies in Europe and also why 90% of E.U. countries can slash their military budgets down to less than 2% of GDP without worrying about their national sovereignty.
Also, rofl at the idea that just because NATO is "tightening the noose" around Russia, this makes Russia some kind of scary threat that could conquer a vastly richer and more populous group of nations by itself. People who actually understand military strategy worth a damn can tell you that increasing your relative strength, building alliances and extending your reach is always a good idea even if nobody can actually seriously threaten you, as it increases your advantage and denies the enemy easy targets. N.A.T.O. didn't absorb tiny post-communist countries like Estonia to protect itself, it did it to protect those countries from Russia. Vague Incident? it was all over the news, I just thought since you're so knowledgeable, you would know about it. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/05/south-american-leaders-demand-apology-in-bolivian-president-plane-dispute/ Heres a link. The reason that the geography of Bolivia doesn't matter is because Evo Morales was flying across the EU, when all of a sudden he was refused AIR SPACE and HAD TO LAND IN VIENNA. Now I am not aware of any conflicts between the EU and Bolivia, so why exactly did these "none-ass-kissing" EU nations refuse air-space to a president of a sovereign, none-enemy nation. BTW I am perfectly aware of the fact that Bolivia is in South America. but Bolivian geography HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. Now would you mind answering the question, and not just point out the fact that Bolivia is in South America. So, helping allies is ass-kissing now?
Vague Incident? it was all over the news, I just thought since you're so knowledgeable, you would know about it. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/05/south-american-leaders-demand-apology-in-bolivian-president-plane-dispute/ Heres a link. The reason that the geography of Bolivia doesn't matter is because Evo Morales was flying across the EU, when all of a sudden he was refused AIR SPACE and HAD TO LAND IN VIENNA. Now I am not aware of any conflicts between the EU and Bolivia, so why exactly did these "none-ass-kissing" EU nations refuse air-space to a president of a sovereign, none-enemy nation. BTW I am perfectly aware of the fact that Bolivia is in South America. but Bolivian geography HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. Now would you mind answering the question, and not just point out the fact that Bolivia is in South America.musclesergeRofl.
It's still unclear whether European countries did block the plane and, if so, why. French, Spanish and Portuguese officials have all said the plane was allowed to cross their territory. The emergency stop in Austria may have been caused by a row over where the plane could refuel and whether European authorities could inspect it for signs of Snowden. The U.S. has declined to comment on whether it was involved in any decision to close European airspace, saying only that "US officials have been in touch with a broad range of countries over the course of the last 10 days," about the Snowden case.Fox
You know, there's an amazing amount of stuff you can learn by simply reading entire articles instead of just the bits that seem scandalous. This looks a lot more like a bunch of South American leaders making a huge fuss about the fact that nobody really cares about them. Why the fvck would the Euros need his permission to search the plane? If they really thought Snowden was there and wanted him they could have just ignored Morales.
Even if it as true, it wouldn't show that these European nations were "kissing American ass" unless it was something that they didn't actually want to do. Nor does it show that the E.U. is dependent on the U.S.A. to defend itself against a poor old backwater like Russia, when the reality is that the E.U. is primarily dependent on the U.S. in matters of economics and global influence.
[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Total war? Russia. They wouldn't gain much from it, though, as they'd just leave EU as a nuclear wasteland.
Amvis
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
Well as Kruschev supposedly once told Kennedy after Kennedy said he had enough nuke missiles to destroy the USSR ten times over "I have enough to destroy your country once, and that is all I need". I'm sure I got some part of that wrong, but the underlying point it makes is valid.[QUOTE="Amvis"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]
Total war? Russia. They wouldn't gain much from it, though, as they'd just leave EU as a nuclear wasteland.
Randolph
Well, the OP said nukes aside. But yeah, even with nukes it would be up in the air. France and Great Britain both have nuclear arsenals. They can't quite match Russia's but still, I would imagine in that case no one would win lol.
Well as Kruschev supposedly once told Kennedy after Kennedy said he had enough nuke missiles to destroy the USSR ten times over "I have enough to destroy your country once, and that is all I need". I'm sure I got some part of that wrong, but the underlying point it makes is valid. In any case any form of nuclear exchange would activate MAD in most probabilities, which would mean the US would launch nukes which would mean the end of the world. And even if the US didn't launch nukes the environmental devastation in a "small scale" nuclear exchange (e.g. Russia nuking UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain vs France and UK nuking Russia) would probably leave Europe borderline uninhabitable for a few years because of the massive amounts of radiation and debris released, while depending on the winds a good portion of the rest of the world could experience massively increased radiation levels and a small scale ice age.If you think I'm BSing you, when Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the global average temperatures dropped by 1,2 degrees and climate didn't return to normal for 5 years, while the sky was substantially darker for a few years. And that was just the eruption of one volcano, the detonation of a few hundred nukes could have cataclysmic effects on the climate.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment