Russia's Military Expansion

Pl. remind me, when did last time Russia's military attacked anyone in Europe-by all means, don't bring up Georgia -it's not in Europe & opened fire 1st, & Ukraine, were Western backed coup led to the current sit.? By expansion to her borders & lately sanctions, NATO provokes the RF to employ countermeasures. This is similar to the result US has with North Korea- using that "sun & the north wind parable", South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" toward NK had far more chances of success & should have continued instead of being stopped & replaced with more sanctions, "joint exercises" & "shows of force"! The same with Iran before the conclusion of the Nuclear Accord. But Russia is a lot more powerful than NK & Iran put together- she won't be swayed by all of the above!
 
Last edited:
Tsavo Lion said:
Pl. remind me, when did last time Russia's military attacked anyone in Europe?
Click to expand...

Well there's Ukraine, and there's Georgia. You can argue that the latter was justified, but that's a separate conversation. Russian involvement is undeniable, open, and decisive in terms of its impact on the outcome of that conflict.

By expansion to her borders & lately sanctions, NATO provokes the RF to employ countermeasures.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what? NATO provokes Russia with sanctions? Were the sanctions just passed out of nowhere?

I really hate when Ukrainians do this (and they seem to do it a lot, at least in conversations I've had over the past couple of years). They start the narrative at the point most convenient to their argument, and will attempt to disregard or somehow claim to be irrelevant, everything that came before. Why are you doing this?

This is similar to the result US has with North Korea- using that "sun & the north wind parable", South Korea's Sunshine Policy had far more chances of success & should have continued instead of being stopped & replaced with more sanctions, "joint exercises" & "shows of force"! The same with Iran before the conclusion of the Nuclear Accord. But Russia is a lot more powerful than NK & Iran put together- she won't be swayed by all of the above!
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
I edited my last post while u posted yours: Georgia -isn't even in Europe & opened fire 1st, & in Ukraine, Western backed coup led to the current state affairs. Russia has a big toolbox of "mirror sanctions" & mil. countermeasures- "the hybrid war" is now waged by both sides. Metaphorically speaking, the proverbial "Russian Bear" has strong bulk, arms & paws with long claws- and with his thick hide, he will not feel too hot from the false Western "sunshine" smiles- i.e. false promises about non-exp. of NATO to East, BMD defense, "No-Fly Zone" in Libya, bombing "mistakes" in Syria, naval & AF deployments in the Baltic & Black seas, & whatever else next they throw at him!
 
Tsavo Lion said:
I edited my last post while u posted yours: Georgia -isn't even in Europe & opened fire 1st, & in Ukraine, Western backed coup led to the current state affairs. Russia has a big toolbox of "mirror sanctions" & mil. countermeasures- "the hybrid war" is now waged by both sides. Metaphorically speaking, the proverbial "Russian Bear" has strong bulk, arms & paws with long claws- and with his thick hide, he will not feel too hot from the false Western "sunshine" smiles- i.e. false promises about non-exp. of NATO to East, BMD defense, "No-Fly Zone" in Libya, bombing "mistakes" in Syria, naval & AF deployments in the Baltic & Black seas, & whatever else next they throw at him!
Click to expand...

This is getting out of control with opinions and individual interest. "Big Toolbox?" "Bulk, arms and paws?"

Seriously?

These forums are better than that. Perhaps it's time to read history and current events Tsavo.
 
Ranger25 said:
This is getting out of control with opinions and individual interest. "Big Toolbox?" "Bulk, arms and paws?"

Seriously?

These forums are better than that. Perhaps it's time to read history and current events Tsavo.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
As much as like bears, still, for the occasion the language is a bit more colourful then one would consider proper. But it does make me smile.

What makes me write this response is the occasion to point out the fact. What you read is varies greatly, depending on where you read it. And this, without taking any sides, is the source of unbridgeable divide. So instead of lecturing your opponent on “history” and “current” events, it would help better to try and step in your opponent shoes or/and to go and learn various available source yourself. Thankfully they are easy to come-by this time and age.
 
Besides reading corporate controlled & not controlled news in English, I read Russian independent news & analysis, incl. in Russian + watch their talk shows online. So, I see issues discussed here from all sides & can read between the lines rather well! A forum is supposed to be more interesting than a radio talk show where the host expects callers to parrot him & can holler at & cut off anyone who doesn't agree with him. For the RF, NATO is getting too close for comfort, it's as simple as that. The bottom line: from Russia's point of view, the perceived threat is there, & they are not going to "turn the other cheek" after trying to "love their (former Cold War) enemies" in the '90s, witnessing the bombing of Serbia & "well justified" Western "export of democracy" to, & color revolutions/regime changes in the ME, Libya & E. Europe, which btw cost them $Bs in lost contracts, & still being lectured by them about being civilized!
How can you say, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while you yourself fail to see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.…
Luke 6:42
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unlike all other boundaries between continents, that between Asia & Europe is almost entirely arbitrary. IIRC the USSR moved it at least once to fit internal administrative boundaries, for example, & it's moved many times in the last three hundred years. Politically, Georgia has often been regarded as being in Europe.
 
Feanor said:
To a serf in Medieval Europe today's middle class lifestyle would seem like heaven on earth.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ;)

Finally don't confuse the meaning of communism in Marxist political science and political philosophy with promises made by particular politicians in particular countries.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the sci fi reference there. Every economic model, including those used in microeconomics, is a simplification of reality. An overabundance of material wealth with no labor force and finite capital is a theoretical result possible only given an infinite amount of technology. Similarly, under the theory of relativity, another theory, the speed of light is possible, but only given an infinite amount of energy. These mean practical impossibilities until new laws of nature previously unknown are discovered. So this is not a matter of tautology or philosophy, but of practical impossibility from the very beginning.

In lay man's terms, we will never have enough technology that will allow everyone to sit on our backs all the time and enjoy an overabundance of material wealth. But as soon as we start working, we discover that personal profit is the best motivator of performance and progress.
 
Last edited:
News:

The US sends 'massive' shipment of arms to Europe in order to bolster defences:

How to conduct a show of force in Europe: with the U.S. Army’s biggest ammo shipment in 20 years. “More than 600 shipping containers, providing supplies for both the Army and Air Force, arrived at Germany’s port in Nordenham Oct. 29 before being sent on to a depot in Miesau and other locations in Europe,” Stars and Stripes reports.

Read more:

Election Day (at last!); Moving toward Raqqa; Army sends huge ammo shipment to Europe; Navy cancels ammo for newest warship; and a bit more... - Defense One

I consider Trump's policy to be sound regarding 'forcing' NATO nations to spend their obligatory 2% of GDP on defence. Europe needs to wake up and fast imho.
 
swerve said:
Unlike all other boundaries between continents, that between Asia & Europe is almost entirely arbitrary. IIRC the USSR moved it at least once to fit internal administrative boundaries, for example, & it's moved many times in the last three hundred years. Politically, Georgia has often been regarded as being in Europe.
Click to expand...
Even though most of the next-door Turkey is situated on Asia Minor peninsula (should it be renamed?), it's also considered in Europe for political purposes. Russia itself isn't considered by many to be a politically part of Europe, but geographically it's in E. Europe, and the Treaty of Conventional Forces in Europe covers the whole area from the Atlantic to the Urals. So, when it's militarily expedient, Russia is part of Europe along with Transcaucasia!
The modern convention of the Europe-Asia boundary (from south to north) follows the Aegean Sea, the Dardanelles-Sea of Marmora-Bosporus, the Black Sea, along the watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the northwestern portion of the Caspian Sea and along the Ural River and Ural Mountains. ..The modern definition of the Eurasian boundary places Georgia and Azerbaijan mostly in Asia, however, each has small sections that lie north of the Greater Caucasus watershed in Europe.
Click to expand...
- in case of Georgia, S. Ossetia is no longer part of it, so it's a moot point! I was referring to geographical definition of Europe, & can tell you that Azeri, Armenian, & Georgian peoples (there are several nationalities within each) don't have European mentality & customs- I've been in all 3 of those (then Soviet) republics!
 
Last edited:
When the difference is that flimsy, it doesn't really matter where you classify Georgia. The point is that for Russia, armed force is an essential if final resort of foreign policy. And Russia has proven willing to use it over the past decade.
 
Isn't this a great opportunity for Russia and Iran to conquer the Persian Gulf? All of the oil rich areas of the Gulf states are populated by oppressed shia arabs that could support an invasion. Russia now also seems to be allied also with the ambitious Islamic tyrant of Turkey, and with Egypt, controlling both the Bosporus and Suez. Russia is in desperate need of increased oil prices, and that is of course the only source of income for Iran too. Saudi broke its oil delivery deal with Egypt the other day, being unhappy of Egypt not participating in the failed war in Yemen. Egypt is rumored to offer Russia a naval base at the Mediterranean and Russian air born troops recently held an exercise in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia spends more on the military than Russia and has very modern weapons, but corruption and incompetence makes them completely inefficient, as their failed war against utterly poor Yemen with 50+ years old weapons proves. Iran, Turkey and Egypt all have huge armies, albeit not much in the way of the most modern equipment. Russia's navy, air force, elite troops and military competence should be a great complement.

Trump is definitely no friend of Saudi Arabia and will never enter a war because of them. The US has no interests in the region, other than Israel. With Trump's promised energy policy the US will become a net oil and gas exporter already next year and would benefit from higher oil prices. Obama doesn't want to go to history as having started world war three, and any substantial US military mobilization in the region will anyway not be ready until Trump takes office January 20th. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Russian Atlantic fleet arrived in Eastern Mediterranean on the election day. I think Putin considers taking advantage of this unique option. The war could be over within weeks and the gains would be enormous.

Besides the huge profits from controlling the world oil prices, Putin would become the greatest hero in Russian history since Peter I. The over 400 years old Russian goal of getting access to the seas in the south would come true, via its allies Iran, Egypt, Turkey. I think one needs to think a bit larger than bombing small rebel groups in Syria. That can't be anything but a pretext for making real gains.

While at it he could conquer Sweden in an afternoon too. Since Sweden doesn't have any defense and no alliances, not a single Russian soldier risks getting wounded and the conflict would not risk any escalation. With Sweden occupied the Baltic states are surrounded, total domination of the Baltic Sea and air bases would have all of Western Europe within easy reach. Even threatening a landing in the UK any day from North Sea naval bases. Sweden is very easy for Russia to defend thanks to it being a peninsula. Since Sweden can be conquered without a single shot fired, it will not be perceived as a war. The Swedish prime minister will be forced to publicly welcome this new voluntary union for "peace, independence, gender equality and responsible climate policy".
 
Alarma said:
Isn't this a great opportunity for Russia and Iran to conquer the Persian Gulf? All of the oil rich areas of the Gulf states are populated by oppressed shia arabs that could support an invasion.
Click to expand...
What? World War 3? That's a great idea! Completely amoral, which is a definite plus point.

BTW, it is not true that "All of the oil rich areas of the Gulf states are populated by oppressed shia arabs". Iraq? Shia majority which runs the country, so they're not exactly oppressed - & the northern oilfields are in Sunni-populated territory. Kuwait? Sunni majority. Ditto Oman. Qatar & UAE? Sunni majority among the citizens, & most of the inhabitants are expatriates. Saudi Arabia? The Eastern Province may have had a Shia majority in the past, but not now: maybe a third Shia, two thirds Sunni. That leaves Bahrain, the only one with a Shia majority ruled by Sunnis.
 
swerve said:
What? World War 3? That's a great idea! Completely amoral, which is a definite plus point.

BTW, it is not true that "All of the oil rich areas of the Gulf states are populated by oppressed shia arabs". Iraq? Shia majority which runs the country, so they're not exactly oppressed - & the northern oilfields are in Sunni-populated territory. Kuwait? Sunni majority. Ditto Oman. Qatar & UAE? Sunni majority among the citizens, & most of the inhabitants are expatriates. Saudi Arabia? The Eastern Province may have had a Shia majority in the past, but not now: maybe a third Shia, two thirds Sunni. That leaves Bahrain, the only one with a Shia majority ruled by Sunnis.
Click to expand...
It's only a ww3 if the US strikes back, which they won't since it isn't in the interest of the current or next president. (Maybe a symbolic "cyber war" to save face for the lying Western media, but nothing that would affect a quick total victory for Russia and Iran). The US has lost everything in the Middle East, that won't change during the last weeks of Obama. Hillary Clinton would have started a total global nuclear war because she is bribed to sacrifice the US for whatever is best for the women enslaving, LGBTQ murdering, terror supporting, racist stone age islamic tyrants of the Gulf states.

Iraq is already under Iranian control. Also in Iraq all the oil rich areas are populated by shia majorities, if the maps one finds by googling shia+oil are correct. That's why I think that this very successful Iranian expansion into shia arab areas will be extended to the Gulf states too. They just need the air support and nuclear threat of Russia to do it. I don't mean to say that the southern coast of the Persian Gulf is only populated by shia muslims, but that's where they are present. Having 1/3 of the local domestic population on the enemy's side is a huge security problem. If there is an Allah he is obviously siding with the shia against the sunni! :)
 
So you think the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and Spain will all be content with Iran and Russia taking over the ME oil and gas industry? I don't think so and they have to oppose it. If things go south then the US will have bail them out. An energy starved Western Europe is not in the USA's interests. Oh, there is a local nuclear power that does not like Iran.
 
John Fedup said:
So you think the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and Spain will all be content with Iran and Russia taking over the ME oil and gas industry? I don't think so and they have to oppose it. If things go south then the US will have bail them out. An energy starved Western Europe is not in the USA's interests. Oh, there is a local nuclear power that does not like Iran.
Click to expand...

European governments don't do much about anything these days. They are content with anything as long as they cash out their high salaries for doing nothing. Do you know of any European politician in government who has a vision of anything? Russia has proven their total impotence by taking Crimea and waging proxy war in Eastern Ukraine without any consequences, after the corrupt regime in Ukraine collapsed in the face of popular revolt (after having been shut out of EU trade because the EU is primarily about protecting the profits of domestic farmers from the very fertile competition of Ukraine). Western Europe has the economic resources to take care of themselves. It is just the political will to do so that is totally absent. And there is no organization for doing so ready today. The next US president doesn't seem keen on being the nanny state that protects unwilling European politicians.

$100 a barrel wasn't a catastrophy for the West. Actually, all European politicians say that high oil prices is GOOD because it saves the world from the non-existing global warming! I'm sure there are people here who can assess the ability of Western Europe to wage an all out war against Russia that starts tomorrow morning.

I don't think you need to worry about Pakistan starting a nuclear war against Iran and Russia because of them taking over Saudi Arabia. Maybe India would strike against them too if they start using their nukes in any way. A thousand nukes would be the sudden death of Pakistan and most Pakistani. Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait didn't trigger a nuclear war, not even close. Nor will an Iranian/Russian/Egyptian invasion of Saudi Arabia, now that their bought agent Hillary Clinton will not become president.
 
I was referring to Israel as the local nuclear power, not Pakistan. Your point about a Pakistani response to a Russian-Iranian ME adventure illustrates some complications for Russia like their important defence sales to both Pakistan and India. Then there is the Chinese response. IMHO, a ME takeover by Russia-Iran would be making the current C-F a even bigger one for all concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top