|
Ardennes posted:The issue obviously is that the US and NATO has an over-whelming technological and economic advantage not to mention ABM systems and nukes. Russia by being passive is almost certainly put in a significantly weaker position, likewise, Russia would be forced to react if heavy numbers of NATO troops were placed in the Baltic states. steinrokkan posted:The one thing I will concede is that the American efforts to invent a "cure" for nuclear deterrence are terrible, and give Russia a reason to be paranoid up to a point. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I don't even know what the gently caress an all-out war with Russia would look like. They don't have the equipment, troop numbers or logistics to launch any large scale invasion of NATO territory(nor do they want to) and NATO is not prepared to go into Russia either(nor do we want to). I guess a limited air war and artillery fire exchange on the border would happen? Can some qualified armchair general come over here and explain? Truga posted:Trump would probably say "many sides" a lot...If some dumbfuck escalated poo poo to nukes it's anyone's guess, but the chances of that happening are probably close enough to 0 to not matter much.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They have tanks in countries bordering on NATO and EU. Neighboring countries which are on their own much more defenseless than Russia. NATO and EU are not America. Why do you think America almost lit the world world on fire when Russian nukes went to Cuba? You keep talking about whataboutism but refuse to actually address the point that this:  was a thing we should try not to repeat. those are the american tanks i keep talking about there btw
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:50
|
|
Truga posted:Meanwhile, EU/non-US NATO standing army is also a loving joke and can in no way afford an invasion of a land mass bigger than isle of man, and Trump would probably say "many sides" a lot, so yeah, the end result would be probably launching rockets and artillery shells over a border line and losing a bunch of lives for no clear reason. If some dumbfuck escalated poo poo to nukes it's anyone's guess, but the chances of that happening are probably close enough to 0 to not matter much. Trump would be very gung-ho about entering the war because fighting alongside his European allies against the evil Russia is probably the only way for him to get a second term. lollontee posted:those are the american tanks i keep talking about there btw So you are talking about American tanks that safeguarded the liberty of West Berlin from an autocratic regime that would murder and torture it's opponents? I get why countries WANT those tanks in THEIR country to defend THEIR border. GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
gonna be a short term
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
lollontee posted:NATO and EU are not America. Why do you think America almost lit the world world on fire when Russian nukes went to Cuba? You keep talking about whataboutism but refuse to actually address the point that this: America and NATO are one package, I don't see why they should be treated separately. Technically Americans didn't have those tanks next to the Soviets either, they faced Eastern German territory, but we are obviously treating them as a single unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:America and NATO are one package, I don't see why they should be treated separately. Technically Americans didn't have those tanks next to the Soviets either, they faced Eastern German territory, but we are obviously treating them as a single unit. I thought you were really big on national agency? Don't we Europeans get to make our own foreign policy decisions? Or could it be that those American tanks come with implicit submission of your foreign policy to American control?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, what I meant at least was Eastern European countries just throwing whatever and whoever they have on hand at the front, not necessarily all-out war between the rest of NATO and Russia right from the start. No, I don't imagine it'd be a stellar example of modern warfare for either side, but it'd be hard to deescalate if you have regular armed forces from both sides duking it out - though admittedly it'd be easier than if they're nuking it out. I'm not sure even about that. Russian and Ukrainian forces have been duking it out every day in eastern Ukraine for the last four years. Almost every type of modern equipment has been used there, massive civilian casualties and large scale destruction, but the two countries are not even officially at war and can call it quits at any time without losing face. It's a brave new world now in terms of warfare. Maybe the idiots in Brussels and Moscow will call a cease fire after they lit a couple thousand tons of equipment on fire on the border and a couple thousand people are dead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
lollontee posted:I thought you were really big on national agency? Don't we Europeans get to make our own foreign policy decisions? Or could it be that those American tanks come with implicit submission of your foreign policy to American control? We have made a decision to allow a different nation to safeguard our borders, for better or worse. It's an autonomous decision, though maybe not optimal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I'm not sure even about that. Russian and Ukrainian forces have been duking it out every day in eastern Ukraine for the last four years. Regular Russian and Ukrainian army units have not been duking it out every day in eastern Ukraine for the last four years. Ukraine is not a NATO country. steinrokkan posted:We have made a decision to allow a different nation to safeguard our borders, for better or worse. It's an autonomous decision, though maybe not optimal. Yes indeed, and the argument I and Ardennes and a whole bunch of other Russian shills are trying to make is that giving over control of our foreign policy to Great Power in return for armed protection is not a politically neutral act with positive results. It is in fact a very partisan choice, and being a country who very definately made the choice to play in the great game, I do not have any particular sympathy towards countries like Georgia that fail at it. What did you think would happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:We have made a decision to allow a different nation to safeguard our borders, for better or worse. It's an autonomous decision, though maybe not optimal. It is extremely cost-effective though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Regular Russian and Ukrainian army units have not been duking it out every day in eastern Ukraine for the last four years. Ukraine is not a NATO country. Of course it is partisan, and Russia has no business telling us if and in which direction we should be partisan. If anything our partisan choice is the result of Russians doing exactly that in the past. There is also no inherent reason why this partisanship should be aimed against Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Of course it is partisan, and Russia has no business telling us if and in which direction we should be partisan. If anything our partisan choice is the result of Russians doing exactly that in the past. lol cool, good luck with that
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
lollontee posted:lol cool, good luck with that you are basically telling me that we should choose to be defenseless so russia doesn't get frustrated when their soldiers come knocking you are much more adamant in portraying russia as a hostile power waiting for an opportunity to bring down its neighbors than even the ostensible anti russian posters itt arent you from loving finland?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:you are basically telling me that we should choose to be defenseless so russia doesn't get frustrated when their soldiers come knocking I am basically telling you that defending yourself against russia with american tanks is a bad idea but hey
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
lollontee posted:I am basically telling you that defending yourself against russia with american tanks is a bad idea but hey it's been working so far. again, arent you from finland?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:you are basically telling me that we should choose to be defenseless so russia doesn't get frustrated when their soldiers come knocking He's following in the proud footsteps of Ligur and other Finnish posters coming out of their bog and making GBS threads up other threads. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Regular Russian and Ukrainian army units have not been duking it out every day in eastern Ukraine for the last four years. Ukraine is not a NATO country. I'm sorry, it was a freudian slip. What I meant was of course the noble and stronk non-Russian Russian tourists and the evil CIA nazi Banderas duking it out on holy novorossiyskaya semla
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I'm sorry, it was a freudian slip. What I meant was of course the noble and stronk non-Russian Russian tourists and the evil CIA nazi Banderas duking it out on holy novorossiyskaya semla ...Right. Which makes them irregular army units. Because they do not have regular army uniforms. Which are part of the definition of a regular army unit. Which is why the Russian army units the Ukrainian army units are fighting are not regular, but irregular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Trump would be very gung-ho about entering the war because fighting alongside his European allies against the evil Russia is probably the only way for him to get a second term. lol not while putin has the piss tape, he'll sooner attack nato for backstabbing his russian friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Being against nuclear apocalypse is russian apologism Yeah I get it, if Russia uses nuclear weapons as a threat we just can't afford to stand up to them. Would you still feel the same if they were coming after Finland?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
hmm, I distinctly recall being repeatedly accused of denying agency to countries who choose put american tanks on therir Russian borders. I do wonder if that same presumption of agency extends to the history of finno-russian relations during the 20th century. Where america incidentally, lacked any active role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
a literal fifth columnist itt talking about how innocent russia is. get the gently caress out of here
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
no
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:That's very disingenious and completely disregards that the history between Russia and Ukraine and Russia and Finland is very different and Russia's interests in one is very different from another. The thing with curiously pro-Russian Finnish posters is to assume that they are p. much in bed with different far-right organizations/nazis and treat them as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Well they're going to make you give a poo poo. So morality play, national sovereignty or not giving a poo poo, eventually you're going to have to face up to the fact that you have neighbours with national interest who intend to pursue them and they will make you take note, politely or not. If this basic principle of human interaction is intolerable to you, close your borders and shut your windows and go to a place where you don't have to submit yourself to any of these considerations: your dreams. AFancyQuestionMark posted:This goes both ways. I think its really silly to demand everyone just bend over backwards to respect Russia's "national interests" while they just go around invading their neighbors whenever they displease them. You're pretty much repeating yourself at this point, and my response is still relevant. Fantasies of nuclear war are just that - fantasies. Russia currently has no capability to take on NATO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Truga posted:Russian aviation is rusted over and their only plane carrier is in shambles Russia is a continental power, not a naval power. It has never been a naval power. I've seen a lot of people comparing the Russian Navy to the US Navy and using that as a metric for why Russia is really toothless, and it's very dumb, because this comparison is completely irrelevant. I believe these maps can help. 1800:  1914:  1945:  And a last non-chronological map showing which old world empire last controlled which territory before it became independent or swallowed by a new world country, though it's missing Italy (Ethiopia was conquered in 1936 and freed in 1941).  So, the thing to note here is that a powerful navy is historically, culturally, traditionally, very important for western powers, and just some sort of pointless white elephant for Russia. The Russian Navy is the red-headed stepchild of the Russian armed forces. Their only reason to exist is nuclear deterrence, in the form of SLBMs. Everything else is secondary and only serves to be the first place where budgets can be cut when money is tight. Looking at the sorry state of Russia's single aircraft carrier is a moot point, the Russian Navy will always suck, but it's not the Russian Navy that is a potential threat to European countries -- as long as we don't escalate to nuclear warfare. As for Russian aviation, it's actually not in that bad a state. They don't seem to have too much trouble bombing hospitals in Syria every day, so that puts them at par with the USAF. lollontee posted:I thought you were really big on national agency? Don't we Europeans get to make our own foreign policy decisions? Or could it be that those American tanks come with implicit submission of your foreign policy to American control? European countries are perfectly capable to tell American troops to go back home. France did. Instead, Eastern European countries chose to invite US troops to deter Russia from claiming them back. You may not like that, Russia may not like that, but it's their decision to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Fantasies of nuclear war are just that - fantasies. Russia currently has no capability to take on NATO. You... what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
I meant exactly what I said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
voi hyvä luoja ja pyhä henki antakaa mun kaik kestää. jeesus kristus armollinen taivaas anna tän olla rölli
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
???
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
YOU CANNOT HAVE A WAR WITH RUSSIA. THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IT WILL END BADLY FOR THE HUMAN SPECIES. PLEASE GET THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE OF 20TH CENTURY GEOPOLITICS INTO YOUR STUPIDLY THICK SKULLS. please, for everyone's sake. i'm begging you
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
inshallah
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Of course. Which is the same reason Russia can't have a war with NATO, so everyone should proceed accordingly - which means not folding to threats from an invasion happy power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
what the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Remember when the finnish president went to meet the american president, who in a live press conference stated that Finland should buy american planes or else? Remember when Finland was planning to produce state of the art civilian submarines and the US sabotaged that project because they feared the finns? The americans have always hated the finns because they didn't join the "buy american" club (NATO).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
i give up
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Finland was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
lollontee posted:YOU CANNOT HAVE A WAR WITH RUSSIA. THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IT WILL END BADLY FOR THE HUMAN SPECIES. PLEASE GET THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE OF 20TH CENTURY GEOPOLITICS INTO YOUR STUPIDLY THICK SKULLS. You re the only one promising us a war with Russia, constantly threatening us that if we choose to defend outselves, russia will repay our insolence thousandfold with righteous wrath, etc. Take some  Randarkman posted:Finland was a mistake. Research indicates
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:Remember when the finnish president went to meet the american president, who in a live press conference stated that Finland should buy american planes or else? Yeah, we call it free riding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Okay. I am not sure why you would expect repeating the same thing but in caps is going to convince people. I really didn't want to wade into comparisons with Nazi Germany, but as a more generally applicable notion - appeasement seldom works. It encourages aggressive parties to keep trying aggressive tactics in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 19:01
|
|