Chindie Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 24 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: The question which such articles provoke is why, if the Russians only spend $11bn ($66.4 total) more than the UK ($55bn total) on defence to defend seventy times the land mass, are we constantly told that Russia is a superpower and the UK has barely enough arms to defend Beachy Head? The Americans spend $596bn. Having successfully convinced the public that Russia is a military superpower, the scaremongering is predictably the next step. The existence of 'perpetual war' is just another indication that we live in an Orwellian world. The Russians get considerably more bang for their buck. Their sheer size, both geographically and in military terms, men and equipment (especially nukes), shoos them in as a superpower. They aren't on the scale of the US, which is the only global superpower to have ever existed and makes their spend a weird outlier, but they are a superpower. They are about the only force in Europe now that could feasibly capture vast tracts of territory very quickly. Globally they are hamstrung by weak power projection (as we have increasingly have too) but Europe looks a lot different very quickly if Russia fancies a go. And that is before you start to consider the power they wield with fuels etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Thing is if they ever did try and make a march on Europe wouldn't the yanks be straight away involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 They would be (and on paper at least all of NATO should mobilise with them in that instance...) and that's why they wouldn't do it, but it doesn't stop them having the capability, and hence the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Are we on the verge of World War III? No. At least not until the EU breaks itself up properly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I think it is quaint that we have sent 800 troops and 2 tanks to stop the Ruskies. Unless we are defending the "hot gates" the numbers seem a little light. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Hasn't everyone got friends from Russia and and the former Soviet Union these days? Have we not worked out who the enemy is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) I think we could easily worry more about what the US are up too . The yanks always like to be the main power in the world, anything less than that and they feel threatened, and some might say who can blame them for feeling threatened. I don't think there is any real threat from Russia or even Iran for that matter. Edited October 27, 2016 by Rugeley Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 At least they're planning to do this. Russia to destroy all of its chemical weapons by end of 2017 Quote MOSCOW — A top Russian official says Russia will destroy all of its chemical weapons by the end of next year, a year earlier than previously announced. Col.-Gen. Valery Kapashin, a military official in charge of storage and elimination of Russia’s chemical stockpiles, told news agencies on Thursday that the remaining weapons will have been disposed of by December 2017. As a signatory of the international Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia already has destroyed about 93 percent of its chemical weapons, according to Russian officials. Russia had to build several plants in the past two decades to dispose of the world’s largest chemical weapons arsenal./rga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 13 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: I think we could easily worry more about what the US are up too . The yanks always like to be the main power in the world, anything less than that and they feel threatened, and some might say who can blame them for feeling threatened. I don't think there is any real threat from Russia or even Iran for that matter. Journalist Robert Fisk claimed that it was no coincidence that the wars in the Middle East started after the Cold War ended because without an external enemy populations start to concern themselves with internal domestic problems, which Bush wanted to avoid. By that logic it could be concluded that the West think things might start to settle down in the Middle East and we are trying to create a new enemy in Russia to serve the same purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Journalist Robert Fisk claimed that it was no coincidence that the wars in the Middle East started after the Cold War ended because without an external enemy populations start to concern themselves with internal domestic problems, which Bush wanted to avoid. By that logic it could be concluded that the West think things might start to settle down in the Middle East and we are trying to create a new enemy in Russia to serve the same purpose. Things settle down in the Middle East? Has there ever been peace there? I'd hate to know what secrets the US have hidden away because from what we already know it's shameful. Same with most governments I suppose. Be nice if we could all cuddle together and take out the Islamists threat together, but that would be too easy I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Things settle down in the Middle East? Has there ever been peace there? I'd hate to know what secrets the US have hidden away because from what we already know it's shameful. Same with most governments I suppose. Be nice if we could all cuddle together and take out the Islamists threat together, but that would be too easy I suppose. Off topic I know, but stopping the policy of my enemy's enemy is my friend, which just replaces one Jihadist group with another, might help. When I said 'settle down' I meant the policy of propping up repressive leaders like Bashar al-Assad to control the likes of Syria with an iron hand, which seems to motivate the Russians. The fact that it is the Russians and not the Americans doing it, seems to be the problem: compare and contrast how our media report the battles for Mosul and Aleppo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Off topic I know, but stopping the policy of my enemy's enemy is my friend, which just replaces one Jihadist group with another, might help. When I said 'settle down' I meant the policy of propping up repressive leaders like Bashar al-Assad to control the likes of Syria with an iron hand, which seems to motivate the Russians. The fact that it is the Russians and not the Americans doing it, seems to be the problem: compare and contrast how our media report the battles for Mosul and Aleppo. True, but the US have funded and still fund rather unsavoury characters themselves. anyway here's to world peace by the year 20000000000000000056 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 38 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Journalist Robert Fisk claimed that it was no coincidence that the wars in the Middle East started after the Cold War ended because without an external enemy populations start to concern themselves with internal domestic problems, which Bush wanted to avoid. Most historians think that was the very same rationale for the Crusades - the black death caused economic disruption in Europe, and the bosses needed to find an outlet for the revolting peasants to keep themselves busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 17 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Most historians think that was the very same rationale for the Crusades - the black death caused economic disruption in Europe, and the bosses needed to find an outlet for the revolting peasants to keep themselves busy. It's usually written off as a 'conspiracy theory' when floated about contemporary times. 'Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business' - neoconservative author Michael Ledeen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 The US, Nato and various US friendly nations currently have the largest gathering of troops in Eastern Europe since the end of world war two. That's at Russia's front door, it's very much a big f-u to Putin. Imagine the fuss if Russia were to put two blokes on an island off the coast of the US? Meanwhile, the largest naval fleet ever assembled patrols the seas south of China and the US continues to put massive bases around the entirely of China's South Coast. We're complaining that the building of islands in the South China Sea represents a dangerous escalation whilst claiming the right to sail in any and every water we like, and calling a fighter flying past a US aircraft carrier thirty miles off the coast of China a dangerous and wild provocation whilst ignoring the idea that there might be something provocative about having a US carrier thirty miles off the coast of China. It's unlikely there will be a war, but we're currently surrounding those that might argue against American hegemony. Not just militarily either, they are being surrounded economically in terms of the rush to trade deals protecting US interests; CETA, TTiP and the TPP are all aimed at shutting out those that aren't playing by US rules, and they're being surrounded by a wall of media and PR dressing them as the instigators and aggresors. In light of that, we're playing a dangerous game and one in which if we leave countries with no option then war becomes much more likely - that is if we can avoid those that quite fancy the prospect in US government managing to get their way. Worryingly, much of the groundwork for public support of that seems to be being laid already. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 Might have been easier to just post this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 32 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: The US, Nato and various US friendly nations currently have the largest gathering of troops in Eastern Europe since the section world war. That's at Russia's front door, it's very much a big f-u to Putin. Imagine the fuss if Russia were to put two blokes on an island off the coast of the US? Why is NATO putting troops into Eastern Europe? Is it the fact Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, annexed Crimea then invaded and continues to this day a war in Eastern Ukraine? Maybe the fact Russia has formed 3 new Rifle Divisions (45-55,000 soldiers) and based them up against the Baltic states? Or maybe the fact the Russian airforce is illegally penetrating the airspace of the Baltic states, Sweden and the Nordic countries on a near daily basis in a transparent attempt at intimidation? Then there's the cyber attack against Estonia, the kidnap and abduction of Latvian security officers from inside their own country, the transfer of new tactical nuclear missiles into Kaliningrad.. and on it goes. Russia has changed the borders of Europe by force for the first time since WW2 and ripped up the post war peace settlement. The seriousness of that has been down played in the media but it's fundamentally challenging the security architecture of Europe. NATO troops are now in Eastern Europe at the host government's request, because they are afraid. Trying to bring Ukraine into the EU and NATO was a hubristic provocation to be sure, but Ukraine is still a sovereign state entitled to organise its external relationships as it chooses. Blaming the pattern of behaviour above on the Americans and the West doesn't seem to have any logical basis at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnbull Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Britain's defences are being strengthened as we speak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts