http://rusrand.ru/analytics/analyticsnatsionalnoe-gosudarstvo-cherez-prizmu-ideologij A discourse about the "death of the nation state through the lens of ideology." Essentially, the argument is that nation-state is dead and the consequence of globalization is that instead of creating a "flat" world where national borders don't matter, we've created a fissured world where national borders matter less than ethnic-cultural-linguistic blocs which should be reformed as empires. Expect this to become (even more of) an omnipresent theme in Russian media and expect RT to start subtly suggesting that a US invasion of Canada would be a good idea in order to consolidate our empire. Smerdyakov fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 04:02 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 16:11 |
|
Smerdyakov posted:Expect this to become (even more of) an omnipresent theme in Russian media and expect RT to start subtly suggesting that a US invasion of Canada would be a good idea in order to consolidate our empire. Let's make it happen!
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 04:09 |
|
Smerdyakov posted:http://rusrand.ru/analytics/analyticsnatsionalnoe-gosudarstvo-cherez-prizmu-ideologij Who needs to invade? Let the Canuks come to us. [They are.]
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 04:14 |
|
The Russians are really going to regret pushing this idea when the Eurasian ethnoempires of the 22nd century get owned by queer, spanglish-speaking, mocha-skinned Americans.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 04:38 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ehmm, are you serious? The US has been extremely successful in its military operations, and Ukraine's military was barely functional back in 2012. The fact that they have any success at all defending against the Russians is an illustration of how weak Russia is. The nuclear trump is literally all Russia has.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 06:23 |
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that they have any success at all defending against the Russians is an illustration of how weak Russia is. The nuclear trump is literally all Russia has. The Russians haven't gone all in. Remember Putin's threat to Barroso. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32akHuL9i0A (Pretend Michael Bluth is Dima)
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 06:28 |
|
Mightypeon posted:I mean, I get that the US military sees itself as the best warfighters ever because they were like, totally successfull in their recent venues. The problem isn't the military itself, but rather that it has been expected to solve problems that don't have a military solution (fixing Afghanistan, reshaping the Middle East in the neoconservatives' image, reversing all the fuckups that led to ISIS.)
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 07:32 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ehmm, are you serious? Yeah, America could totally burn Russia to the ground if they didn't have nukes. Also our nukes are better probably.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 07:43 |
|
Are there even any other historical examples of a military invading a country and then sticking around to try to rebuild it with a stable, friendly government? In the past it seemed like you just invaded and installed a puppet dictator/king and called it a day. When it comes to invading and dismantling a nations government, the US military is terrifyingly effective.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 07:45 |
|
Mustang posted:Are there even any other historical examples of a military invading a country and then sticking around to try to rebuild it with a stable, friendly government? In the past it seemed like you just invaded and installed a puppet dictator/king and called it a day. To a point right, we can't really do much if a country has a modern AA system in place. Our emphasis is on air power because we need to minimize causalities to the greatest extent. We may still win a ground conflict, but it may turn bloody and that doesn't play well back home.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 10:19 |
|
Mustang posted:Are there even any other historical examples of a military invading a country and then sticking around to try to rebuild it with a stable, friendly government? Well yeah. There's two sorts of invasion: if you're invading only for pillage and plunder, then you get away with the spoil of war and let them rebuild by themselves so that there's more stuff to pillage next time. But when you invade to seize territory, you rebuild because you want to invaded land to be part of your country from now on (directly as a province or indirectly as a colony) and it has to be functional to be profitable. What's new is the idea of invading, rebuilding, and then going away. But that's not exactly what happened in Iraq, is it?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 10:57 |
|
"A modern AA system" means having enough launchers, missiles, trained crew, radar systems etc to at least pop a couple of hundred jets really fast, at least enough to make any attack by the 4000 strong NATO plane swarm rather unappealing politically. Having enough / the industry to replenish modern AA systems to put up an actual fight for years is out of the league for anyone but like, China and Russia. Luckily for a lot of countries, that NATO plane swarm is about to get a whole lot smaller and less effective (against modern AA at least) thanks to the F-35
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 10:58 |
|
Pimpmust posted:"A modern AA system" means having enough launchers, missiles, trained crew, radar systems etc to at least pop a couple of hundred jets really fast, at least enough to make any attack by the 4000 strong NATO plane swarm rather unappealing politically. Eh NATO "plane swarms" have been far less robust than that in recent years maybe by a magnitude or 2.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:09 |
|
Ardennes posted:Eh NATO "plane swarms" have been far less robust than that in recent years maybe by a magnitude or 2. How about Drones?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:17 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZyL-zEoMfM They only cost 30k each. The NATO air swarm is hella effective, but now we have replaced danes in f-16s with unmanned decoys.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:18 |
|
Jarmak posted:The US has been extremely successful in its military operations, and Ukraine's military was barely functional back in 2012. The fact that they have any success at all defending against the Russians is an illustration of how weak Russia is. The nuclear trump is literally all Russia has. You are aware that Russia is less brazenly involved in Ukraine than Nato was in Lybia? You are aware that Ukraines military is claiming "it was the Russians who did this" everytime they loose, and is also claiming "it was the Russians we defeated mwahahaha"? You are aware that an outright invasion, which would result in Russian in Kiev in about 2 weeks at most, is not done because Russia doesnt feel like subsidizing Ukraine forever afterwards (and also because Russia thinks that this is what the USA wants them to do)? For the record, your military managed, with considerable ground assistance of indigenous forces, tactically defeat the Taleban. It has no achieved its strategic goals in Afghanistan. It managed to cursh Saddam Hussein, and, despite pretty spirited resistance, deal the death blow to Col. Ghadaffis forces in Lybia. The situation in Lybia, and especially in Iraq, is not at all in line with previously formulated US strategic goals. Both are strategic blunders. Your most notable success in the Iraqi counter insurgency came from literally bribing your enemies to attack your puppet goverment instead (while insisting on the polite fiction that they were attacking Al-Quaida), which pretty few people see as a successfull military endeavor. Do you seriously want to compare Khadyrov to Maliki or Karzai? I mean, Khadyrov is so secure, he sents parts of his irregular armed forces abroad to further perceived Russian interests, Maliki by contrast needed constant infusions of US aid to be even able remotely hold on power. If you take the absolutly incredible amount of resources the US military can draw upon into account, lets just say that the actual performance of your military does not look very impressive. Apart from that, training for counter insurgency and demoting huge resources that could have been spent elsewhere will without a doubt do great things for you in a conventional clash with loving Russia. Note, I am German, not that my military is much better run, and my, admittedly conscript, opinion is that "well, if our army would be good, big brother would constantly bother us to use it for blowing up random 3rd world dictators, and that would be a hazzle." was a pretty well entrechned informal concept.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:26 |
|
Mightypeon posted:You are aware that Russia is less brazenly involved in Ukraine than Nato was in Lybia? I normally know better than to read one word of a MightyPeon post, but this is especially laughable. How many Americans died in Libya? 4, after Gaddafi? And how many Russians have died in Ukraine so far? Oh, and remember when the American military pretended to be Libyans and declared Benghazi a new American state? Try to keep your response succinct and snappy if you've got a comeback.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:29 |
|
VanSandman posted:How about Drones? Unless you want to fully autonomize them, they are distinctly subpar against any power that can contest airspace for a lot of reasons. First, they cannot act autonomously. They depend on their signal link to whereever in the USA is a dude in a bunker guiding them. Nation states have varied and effective means available for attacking those communication links. Second, they can be pretty big, and arent exactly great air to air platforms. Compared to lets say the Taleban, serious opponents tend to have an Air force. They are also quite vulnerable to serious ground based anti air systems, of which a serious opponent would also have a ton. Now, they can do some pretty nice recon, since one cares a lot about a spy plane getting shot down, while a recon drone getting shot down does not matter, but to fullfill any kind of "mwahahah, we will drown the evil Russians in Drones!" dreams, one would need a lot more drones than one could reasonably manufacture.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:31 |
|
Dolash posted:How many Americans died in Libya? 4, after Gaddafi? And how many Russians have died in Ukraine so far? Oh, and remember when the American military pretended to be Libyans and declared Benghazi a new American state? Actually, the Libya has always been a part of USA
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:39 |
|
Dolash posted:I normally know better than to read one word of a MightyPeon post, but this is especially laughable. Ok, try to get back at me when Russia blasts the gently caress of the Kievan ofrces in the field, blows up parts of Kiev, pursues Yats et al co to Lviv, and Putin does a public "We came, we saw, he died" stunt about Yats when he is killed by anal impalement. E: thing is, US didnt even give a gently caress about holding up appearances.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 11:52 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ok, try to get back at me when Russia blasts the gently caress of the Kievan ofrces in the field, blows up parts of Kiev, pursues Yats et al co to Lviv, and Putin does a public "We came, we saw, he died" stunt about Yats when he is killed by anal impalement. deliberately shooting at civilians while pretending you aren't is much better than not caring when a dictator gets lynched by his people, yes
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:09 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ok, try to get back at me when Russia blasts the gently caress of the Kievan ofrces in the field, blows up parts of Kiev, pursues Yats et al co to Lviv, and Putin does a public "We came, we saw, he died" stunt about Yats when he is killed by anal impalement. The USA also didn't intervene in Libya as a result of Libyan protesting against Qaddafi's refusal to sign a Community of Independent States accession treaty and choosing instead to align with Washington's wishes, then the protesters managing to force Qaddafi to flee to the USA while they install a pro-Russian government in Tripoli. The similitude between Libya and Ukraine is extremely tenuous.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:13 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ok, try to get back at me when Russia blasts the gently caress of the Kievan ofrces in the field, blows up parts of Kiev, pursues Yats et al co to Lviv, and Putin does a public "We came, we saw, he died" stunt about Yats when he is killed by anal impalement. You say this like lying about foreign involvement in military operations ("appearances") is a good thing.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:14 |
|
Mightypeon posted:You are aware that an outright invasion, which would result in Russian in Kiev in about 2 weeks at most, is not done because Russia doesnt feel like subsidizing Ukraine forever afterwards (and also because Russia thinks that this is what the USA wants them to do)? Is this why they keep sending soldiers to become minced meat trying to take the Donetsk airport constantly too, they want to get rid of able-bodied men to feed and clothe?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:28 |
|
Dolash posted:You say this like lying about foreign involvement in military operations ("appearances") is a good thing. A criminal who openly and brazenly breaches the law is a more powerful and dangerous criminal then one who attempts to cover his tracks.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:42 |
|
Estonian pastry chefs created this marzipan Putin.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 12:43 |
|
Ardennes posted:Eh NATO "plane swarms" have been far less robust than that in recent years maybe by a magnitude or 2. I'm uncertain on the current numbers, just went with whatever they had available for Gulf War 1 (or 2, depending on how you view Iran vs Iraq). I do know that the plane fleet has been aging quite a lot in the decades since and the Drone Swarms probably do a pretty poor job of a stand-up war.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 13:10 |
|
That is horrifying, but I bet Putin would kill to have a full head of hair again.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 13:21 |
|
Pimpmust posted:I'm uncertain on the current numbers, just went with whatever they had available for Gulf War 1 (or 2, depending on how you view Iran vs Iraq). I do know that the plane fleet has been aging quite a lot in the decades since and the Drone Swarms probably do a pretty poor job of a stand-up war. As for drones, I will believe it when I see it versus a conventional military with modern systems. Anyway, the number of countries that have modern systems, no nuclear weapons and aren't friends of the US is pretty small if maybe non-existent if you want to play with definitions a bit. If you include countries with nuclear weapons (China, Russia) it gets more murky though. Iran doesn't seem to have especially modern systems at this point and we still like Egypt and Turkey.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 13:37 |
|
Mightypeon posted:A criminal who openly and brazenly breaches the law is a more powerful and dangerous criminal then one who attempts to cover his tracks. You mean like Putin? Eh, your rambling idiocy is reaching new levels. You really strain my 'no blocking' people policy with your hideous posting.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 14:52 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Ok, try to get back at me when Russia blasts the gently caress of the Kievan ofrces in the field, blows up parts of Kiev, pursues Yats et al co to Lviv, and Putin does a public "We came, we saw, he died" stunt about Yats when he is killed by anal impalement. You should note that when the US does bad things (like invade other countries with flimsy, full-of-holes excuses) they are criticized and the actions are deeply unpopular and often end up backfiring massively. And these interventions at least are against awful dictators or to support popular uprisings against them. Why then, is it all that surprising that when Russia starts backing "Rebels" in a democratic (more or less) nation with the purpose of destabilizing it so they could carve it up in a naked grab for territory that the same thing happens but 10x worse?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 15:23 |
|
Mustang posted:Are there even any other historical examples of a military invading a country and then sticking around to try to rebuild it with a stable, friendly government? In the past it seemed like you just invaded and installed a puppet dictator/king and called it a day. Japan.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 15:30 |
|
Numlock posted:You should note that when the US does bad things (like invade other countries with flimsy, full-of-holes excuses) they are criticized and the actions are deeply unpopular and often end up backfiring massively. And these interventions at least are against awful dictators or to support popular uprisings against them. Remind me when the US had sanctions on it for doing things about 10 times as worse in human death tolls. Also, the US pretty much unilaterally decides who is an awfull dictator and who isnt. Neither being awful, or a dictator, are sufficient or neccessary to make it on the US shitlist. Neither being awful, nor being a dictator, prevent you from being bestest friends ever with the reigning US interests either. Is Ukraine democratic or sovereign when Mrs. Nuland decides who becomes the Prime Minister? Perhaps it is, but wasnt it clearly more democratic and sovereign when the Ukrainian people decided that? So who started the destruction of Ukrainian democracy and sovereignity? I get that Ukraine barely registered on the globe for the average US guy, but the thing is, exactly this cluelessness is what allowed a bunch of completely unelected officials with absolutly no accountability for their shenangians to gently caress up the situation. There are literally a bunch of dead people, some of whom were genuine Ukrainian patriots, that are dead because Mrs. Nuland backed her Soros crony Yats into loving up the February agreements. With what legitimacy did she do that? Żats by the way is such an obvious puppet that the Shah, and also Yanukovich, are like, independent minded mavericks by comparison. I get the psychological fixation on "oh my god, Russia is evil therefore we are good", at home, the USA is transforming into an Oligarchy, it has a repression apparatus founded by direct seizures of property without even charging the victims with crimes, it wages a war on whistleblowers, happily destroys what is left of Unions, and establishes an internal apparate for mass scale repression whose capabilities may dwarf those of the NKVD. Your repression apparate also claims the right to execute by drone anyone anywhere without anything even remotely resembling due process. Literally the only thing that improved recently is the better situation for homosexuals. The US is already so Oligarchic that there is as a matter of fact no democratic solution for any of this, both of your parties are fundamentally the same on those issues. It got so bad that todays Daniel Elsberg equivalent has to flee to Russia of all countries. Hating on Russia, for in some aspects indeed being objectively worse, is like, the only thing you have left. It is also not going to fix your issues.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 15:54 |
|
computer parts posted:Japan. Germany/Europe after WWII. The Marshall Plan was so successful it has left the impression that a version of it can be done anywhere.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 15:55 |
|
computer parts posted:Japan. And west Germany, South korea was imho a bit different, and they managed to become prosperous and democratic inspite, not because, of US hegemony. The thing that people that rave around "X will become the next Japan/West Germany after we conquer it" forget is that the most important ingredient to that buildup was the fact that anyone with power in either West Germany or Japan was scared shitless of the USSR coming and taking their stuff, so they explicitly supported the USA.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 15:57 |
|
Mightypeon posted:You are aware that Russia is less brazenly involved in Ukraine than Nato was in Lybia? Not that that rambling isn't mostly bullshit , but none of that has poo poo to do with the military's capabilities. The " Strategic goals" you're talking about are failures of political decisions.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 16:19 |
|
Mightypeon posted:Remind me when the US had sanctions on it for doing things about 10 times as worse in human death tolls. Ah c'mon MP, you're better than this.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 16:41 |
|
None of this dribble excuses or even explains why Russia is attacking Ukraine because "somebody else did a bad thing" isn't an excuse or explanation. It is as if you are suggesting Russia is a young child desperately trying to avoid trouble with their parents for doing something they knew was wrong and all they can come up with is "BILLY DID IT FIRST"
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 18:09 |
|
MightyPeon, you're better suited to the Clancychat thread. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/07/ukraine-russian-military-column-east Russian buildup in east continues. quote:A Kremlin adviser said on Friday that Russia was committed to the two-month-old agreement and wanted further talks held to build on peace moves involving government forces and separatists. "Peace moves" meaning Russia moves in and there is peace. http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL6N0SY0LR20141108?irpc=932 Russia moves its institutions to Hong Kong. As I predicted in the Clancychat thread, Russia will proceed to list Gazprom in Hong Kong to raise capital given Russia's continued ambitions for winter "peace moves." Russia: The sick man of Europe. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 8, 2014 |
# ? Nov 8, 2014 18:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 16:11 |
|
Wait is Russia really moving state companies offshore? How does that even work?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2014 18:32 |