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.

Smerdyakov posted:

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.

Mightypeon posted:

Ehmm, are you serious?
You are talking about the worlds premier nuclear power, with propably the worlds 3rd strongest conventional army.

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.

If you want some extra information, this is a good starting point.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181

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.

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.

Mightypeon posted:

Ehmm, are you serious?
You are talking about the worlds premier nuclear power, with propably the worlds 3rd strongest conventional army.

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.

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.

When it comes to invading and dismantling a nations government, the US military is terrifyingly effective.

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?

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.
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

Ardennes posted:

Eh NATO "plane swarms" have been far less robust than that in recent years maybe by a magnitude or 2.

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.

Mightypeon posted:

You are aware that Russia is less brazenly involved in Ukraine than Nato was in Lybia?

VanSandman posted:

How about Drones?

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?

Dolash posted:

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.

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.

E: thing is, US didnt even give a gently caress about holding up appearances.

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.

E: thing is, US didnt even give a gently caress about holding up appearances.

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.

E: thing is, US didnt even give a gently caress about holding up appearances.

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)?

Dolash posted:

You say this like lying about foreign involvement in military operations ("appearances") is a good thing.

Ardennes posted:

Eh NATO "plane swarms" have been far less robust than that in recent years maybe by a magnitude or 2.

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.

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.

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.

E: thing is, US didn't even give a gently caress about holding up appearances.

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.

When it comes to invading and dismantling a nations government, the US military is terrifyingly effective.

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.

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?

computer parts posted:

Japan.

computer parts posted:

Japan.

Mightypeon posted:

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.

Mightypeon posted:

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.

Mightypeon posted:

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.