Russian Military News

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
And what would Russia gain from invasion? The territory they control now is settled by people who support Russia, adding more territory would add population that would not support Russia, which means guerrilla war which is something Russians try to avoid since the Second Chechen war. Worse, all added territories would be an economic basket case and the current Donbass territories are already big enough headache.

Because Russia is strategically exposed. It was one thing back when Ukraine was under the will of the Kremlin or even simply neutral, but a Ukraine that is openly allied with NATO? That's a red line that the Russians cannot accept. It would allow NATO fighters and bombers within an hour or so strike of Moscow itself. To say nothing of newly developed hypersonic missiles. There's a reason why this suddenly happened in 2014 after the revolution against a pro-Russian leader by pro-NATO movements.

That doesn't even bring into account the problems that the Russians are having with their demographics. Their military is going to be too small to protect the border they have now. The Russia that could throw endless waves of troops at the enemy is long gone. So Russia's only real option at the moment is to move its army forward and take anchor points that they can defend.


These are regular operations, it's just that media portrays them as extraordinary to create impression of imminent invasion, possibly due to foreign crisis inducing USA conservative to obediently fall in line with their government (albeit not as much as they used to).

It was US intelligence agencies that gave the alert. And while they probably have a vested interest in containing Russia purely out of habit--and so we might be skeptical, there is no reason to believe that they're lying simply so the Democrats can force conservatives to act as they want.

If Putin was that stupid, he would have carried the invasion two months ago, before the Duma elections in order to improve elections results. Their current woes are nowhere as bad to warrant Falkland style idiocy.

Russian elections are probably already rigged, so why would he base a very critical military decision on a single election? It's one thing to be skeptical that Russia will attack, but it's another to invent silly theories as to why it can't or won't.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
No, a multipolar world will not exist. no country that wants to rule will let it Bacle.

Bacle is correct, actually. We have been moving towards a multi-polar world for decades. The 90s and 00s were probably the height of American global dominance for this century. The United States is not interested in ruling the world and the remaining powers that be are incapable of doing so.

The next war WILL be a world war Sixth.
That is the thing, two many countries have lines drawn with others as allies. TO many are working closely with others.
Three areas are on the verge of war.
This new Ukraine Russia thing, it may or may not lead to war. We will see.
China and Taiwan.
Iran and Isreal.
Iran and Isreal is always going back and forth with small stuff.

I feel like there is no choice left but world war.

You are correct that there will be various wars and you note the areas of concern. Namely, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. However, it will not be a world war. These will be different conflicts of various intensity and may not even occur concurrently. The Russians, for example, will slowly try and slice away portions of Eastern Europe if they can, so as not to alarm either the Americans or the European powers. The Middle East is seeing an escalating cold war between Iran and Israel coalitions. And of course, China's belligerence in East Asia is likely to trigger a war; either between Taiwan or Japan or the US or all three (and more).

Of the three, the US will probably only be involved in a war against China. We might supply arms and even lend support to Israel, but for the most part--Israel will be left to fend for itself. A war against Russia is simply not in the cards for America. What I do see, in regards to strategy against Russia, is the American focus in Poland. Which is strategically sound. It would put an American presence between the Russians and the Germans. Russia gains its strategic depth, but concedes the strategic anchor point--while obtaining a buffer state. Albeit one they do not care for.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Bacle is correct, actually. We have been moving towards a multi-polar world for decades. The 90s and 00s were probably the height of American global dominance for this century. The United States is not interested in ruling the world and the remaining powers that be are incapable of doing so.



You are correct that there will be various wars and you note the areas of concern. Namely, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. However, it will not be a world war. These will be different conflicts of various intensity and may not even occur concurrently. The Russians, for example, will slowly try and slice away portions of Eastern Europe if they can, so as not to alarm either the Americans or the European powers. The Middle East is seeing an escalating cold war between Iran and Israel coalitions. And of course, China's belligerence in East Asia is likely to trigger a war; either between Taiwan or Japan or the US or all three (and more).

Of the three, the US will probably only be involved in a war against China. We might supply arms and even lend support to Israel, but for the most part--Israel will be left to fend for itself. A war against Russia is simply not in the cards for America. What I do see, in regards to strategy against Russia, is the American focus in Poland. Which is strategically sound. It would put an American presence between the Russians and the Germans. Russia gains its strategic depth, but concedes the strategic anchor point--while obtaining a buffer state. Albeit one they do not care for.
I don't think the US will only focus on one theater.
This will depend on a lot of things of course.
Will Europe stop Russia if they attack? Are they going to let Russia take Ukraine?
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I don't think the US will only focus on one theater.

Entirely? No, we'll have multiple interests elsewhere. Right now however, our primary threat is in China, though much of it is in smoke and mirrors. The truth is that the Chinese are heavily dependent upon the US global system. As it evaporates, so does a great deal of China's power. They still are--and will remain (for a time) a great power, but they do not have the means to strike far beyond their region. They will be put hard to the test to take Taiwan. Though I expect they will at least try at some point in the future.

This will depend on a lot of things of course.
Will Europe stop Russia if they attack? Are they going to let Russia take Ukraine?

There is not much strength left in Europe. There is strength in countries such as Poland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway--but they are on their own, not a match for even the weakened Russian military. France has the power and the means to resist, as does the UK, but they are dependent upon Russian gas and it is asking a great deal to have the French die for people as far flung as Ukraine or Belarus. Germany might have had the strength, but they're entirely focused on economics right now and have little to no military to speak of. They could produce the strength, but that takes time and they too are dependent upon Russian gas.

That is not to say that they will do absolutely nothing--they can sell weapons, send in special forces, or otherwise inflict pain upon the Russians. I don't think any of the major European powers will even consider moving seriously against Russia until the Poland border itself is threatened. And that is an easier issue to manage, if the United States remains within Poland to act as a buffer.

That way, France and Germany will be comfortable with a more militaristic Germany, as American presence in Poland will keep the Germans in check. The Russians will not care for it and may press against us there, but they would not have the strength to force the issue, especially if they were reinforced by the French, British, Germans, and the Pols themselves. It would be an acceptable geopolitical reality for Russia.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I don't think the US will only focus on one theater.
This will depend on a lot of things of course.
Will Europe stop Russia if they attack? Are they going to let Russia take Ukraine?
Western Europe isn't willing to die for Ukraine, the Baltics, or the Balkans. Nor is much of American public interested in another foreign war, no matter how much warmongers in the military want one.

Realigning our goals to create a strong Poland, giving the Russians a buffer state and energy competitor (once the Polish civies nuke power comes online), will help ease things because Russia knows Poland won't let it's guard down, but not will it just operate in lockstep with NATO or Brussels, if they go retarded.

With China, there won't be war because too much of DC and the powers that be are owned by, or heavily invested in, the CCP.

At most it would be skirmishes in the Taiwan Straight by rogue military units disobeying DC's orders to stand down, unless the CCP wants to up the ante to nukes, which is a fight no one wins.

Israel doesn't need much help from us to handle Iran; the Mossad seem perfectly able to utterly wreck Iran from the inside when they feel like it.

There will not be another world war, or anything close to it, because no one but the US military wants one, and the US military is subservient to will the US public, not the other way around.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Entirely? No, we'll have multiple interests elsewhere. Right now however, our primary threat is in China, though much of it is in smoke and mirrors. The truth is that the Chinese are heavily dependent upon the US global system. As it evaporates, so does a great deal of China's power. They still are--and will remain (for a time) a great power, but they do not have the means to strike far beyond their region. They will be put hard to the test to take Taiwan. Though I expect they will at least try at some point in the future.



There is not much strength left in Europe. There is strength in countries such as Poland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway--but they are on their own, not a match for even the weakened Russian military. France has the power and the means to resist, as does the UK, but they are dependent upon Russian gas and it is asking a great deal to have the French die for people as far flung as Ukraine or Belarus. Germany might have had the strength, but they're entirely focused on economics right now and have little to no military to speak of. They could produce the strength, but that takes time and they too are dependent upon Russian gas.

That is not to say that they will do absolutely nothing--they can sell weapons, send in special forces, or otherwise inflict pain upon the Russians. I don't think any of the major European powers will even consider moving seriously against Russia until the Poland border itself is threatened. And that is an easier issue to manage, if the United States remains within Poland to act as a buffer.

That way, France and Germany will be comfortable with a more militaristic Germany, as American presence in Poland will keep the Germans in check. The Russians will not care for it and may press against us there, but they would not have the strength to force the issue, especially if they were reinforced by the French, British, Germans, and the Pols themselves. It would be an acceptable geopolitical reality for Russia.
France seems to be going to more nuclear so there is that fir power wise in France.

China is also closer to war with us I think.

I honestly don't know what Europe will do. I don't know if Poland will want Russia to basically be further on thier border then they already are, and could be positioned to invade easily.

A lot of us are watching are expecting to go hot.
Others arnt.
Western Europe isn't willing to die for Ukraine, the Baltics, or the Balkans. Nor is much of American public interested in another foreign war, no matter how much warmongers in the military want one.

Realigning our goals to create a strong Poland, giving the Russians a buffer state and energy competitor (once the Polish civies nuke power comes online), will help ease things because Russia knows Poland won't let it's guard down, but not will it just operate in lockstep with NATO or Brussels, if they go retarded.

With China, there won't be war because too much of DC and the powers that be are owned by, or heavily invested in, the CCP.

At most it would be skirmishes in the Taiwan Straight by rogue military units disobeying DC's orders to stand down, unless the CCP wants to up the ante to nukes, which is a fight no one wins.

Israel doesn't need much help from us to handle Iran; the Mossad seem perfectly able to utterly wreck Iran from the inside when they feel like it.

There will not be another world war, or anything close to it, because no one but the US military wants one, and the US military is subservient to will the US public, not the other way around.
There will be another world War Bacle.
Denying that is not a good thing.

Letting Ukraine fall would be worse then A-stan and other counties may take advantage noticing we arnt doing anything.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
There will be another world War Bacle.
Denying that is not a good thing.
Your organizations entire line of work and paychecks depend on convincing civies we are always on the verge of war, so I'm not going to treat you as an unbiased or trustworthy source on this.

You need us to be about to go to war in order to justify so many things, that I expect the US military would false-flag shit just to get the war they want, or lie like they did about Iraq, and I know I would not be alone in looking for false flags in any 'incident' the US military wanted to use to justify open, armed conflict.

The US military no longer has the benefit of the doubt with the US public, nor does much of the US public trust the military to not false-flag shit or lie to get the wars they want.
Letting Ukraine fall would be worse then A-stan and other counties may take advantage noticing we arnt doing anything.
Have you ever considered maybe Ukraine shouldn't be our fight?

Have you ever considered the issues with Ukraine stem more from Gorby redrawing internal Soviet borders so that chunks of Western Russia became Eastern Ukraine, and maybe Russia has a point about the Donbass and such that is inconvenient for Western narratives about Ukraine?

You cannot abide the US not being the sole superpower, and you cannot abide the US military not being the world's policeman, because it undermines all the lies and mistruths that have been building up for decades in DC to justify so many abuses of power.

China may try for Taiwan, but the CCP knows that could very easily escalate to nukes if they hold true to their Japan Exception in their nuke policy. So at most I expect a lot of smoke, mirrors, and blustering from the CCP, and maybe more domestic ops inside Taiwan to try to change it's politics more towards reunification, but the CCP won't try for Taiwan unless they are willing to risk a nuclear exchange for it.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Your organizations entire line of work and paychecks depend on convincing civies we are always on the verge of war, so I'm not going to treat you as an unbiased or trustworthy source on this.

You need us to be about to go to war in order to justify so many things, that I expect the US military would false-flag shit just to get the war they want, or lie like they did about Iraq, and I know I would not be alone in looking for a false flags in any 'incident' the US military wanted to use to justify open, armed conflict.

The US military no longer has the benefit of the doubt with the US public, nor does much of the US public trust the military to not false-flag shit or lie to get the wars they want.
Have you ever considered maybe Ukraine shouldn't be our fight?

Have you ever considered the issues with Ukraine stem more from Gorby redrawing internal Soviet borders so that chunks of Western Russia became Eastern Ukraine, and maybe Russia has a point about the Dunbass and such that is inconvenient for Western narratives about Ukraine?

You cannot abide the US not being the sole superpower, and you cannot abide the US military not being the world's policeman, because it undermines all the lies and mistruths that have been building up for decades in DC to justify so many abuses of power.

China may try for Taiwan, but the CCP knows that could very easily escalate to nukes if they hold true to their Japan Exception in their nuke policy. So at most I expect a lot of smoke, mirrors, and blustering from the CCP, and maybe more domestic ops inside Taiwan to try to change it's politics more towards reunification, but the CCP won't try for Taiwan unless they are willing to risk a nuclear exchange for it.
Nuclear war won't happen.

Look, I have just been pointing out war is literally around the corner, and the countries that we may be multipolar with want to nit have us be a big player anymore.
China is the only one close, and having them be a superpower is worse for the world then having a single country
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
France seems to be going to more nuclear so there is that fir power wise in France.

Yes and that makes France formidable, but they have more immediate concerns south of them in Africa. They're not going to be so intent on trying to challenge Russia when they desperately need to stretch their economic sphere into West Africa. From resources such as oil to consumers to other goods, Africa is something that France is looking to exert its power over again, albeit in a more civilized fashion.

China is also closer to war with us I think.

Yes, but China is contained. Any strike against the US is going to bring an entire array of Asian allies against them. They do not have the projection power to do more than possibly take Taiwan and doing so would be a meatgrinder at beast and very likely a humiliating defeat. China's government is far more worried about the fracturing of their own civilization into competing nation states, then they are with the US. Their entire economic policy is geared around social and political stability.

And that has left them weakened and in a poor position. Part of China's belligerence is in trying to provoke western powers to act overtly, so China can turn to its populace and say "See, they're the bad guys". Because Xi and the party know that they cannot continue to provide growing wealth to the masses--in fact, they know they can't even maintain what they have.

In fact, Xi and the party know that most of the gains that China's people have made in the past few decades are going to go into screaming reverse. So Xi and the party are working overtime to entrench themselves. And yes, it does appear that some of the party members have swallowed China's own kool-aid. They may try to take Taiwan. Even knowing it will kill millions of young men. Possibly because it will kill millions of young men.

I honestly don't know what Europe will do. I don't know if Poland will want Russia to basically be further on thier border then they already are, and could be positioned to invade easily.

Poland really doesn't get a vote on that matter. They can try to arrange for a sort of coalition to keep Russia in check and indeed, they're doing that now--but they're not going to have the strength to do more than protect themselves. They don't have the strength to eject Russia out of Eastern Europe.

There will be another world War Bacle.
Denying that is not a good thing.

That's doubtful. World Wars have always originated in Europe. And it has always been triggered around the Germans. Since the Germans are not in the game at the moment, it doesn't seem likely that a world war is imminent. Russia knows it can't win a war with Europe and America allied against it. The Kremlin is seeking thus to avoid a direct confrontation. Russia wants a creeping war.

Nor will the Middle East provide a World War, because Europe and the US are mostly going to keep out of it. Iran is strong, but a lot of its power has been whittled away in the past few years. They will be hard pressed to take Saudi Arabia, let alone press onto Israel. They are proficient in military capability, but most of their technology is old and irreplaceable. Closing the gulf won't destroy Saudi Arabia's money flows, because they have an alternative pipeline well beyond Iranian reach. It only hurts the customers who buy it, because they have to pay a premium over the reduced flow. Nor can Iran get its goods out either, so it's a double edged sword.

China and East Asia won't spill into a world war, because the moment the US cuts off oil shipments from the Middle East, it will probably send China's entire economy into an uncontrollable tailspin. China might lash out at nearby targets, such as Taiwan, India, Vietnam, and others--but Xi will be more preoccupied with using his troops to keep his own people in line and constantly worried about betrayals and internal challenges.

Any world war is probably decades away, closer to a century.

Letting Ukraine fall would be worse then A-stan and other counties may take advantage noticing we arnt doing anything.

I don't think it will be far worse in terms of morale for America, but it will basically telegraph to the world that the US is not going to be there to defend you--and it will be a clear signal that Europe is not going to defend Eastern Europe from Russia.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Yes and that makes France formidable, but they have more immediate concerns south of them in Africa. They're not going to be so intent on trying to challenge Russia when they desperately need to stretch their economic sphere into West Africa. From resources such as oil to consumers to other goods, Africa is something that France is looking to exert its power over again, albeit in a more civilized fashion.



Yes, but China is contained. Any strike against the US is going to bring an entire array of Asian allies against them. They do not have the projection power to do more than possibly take Taiwan and doing so would be a meatgrinder at beast and very likely a humiliating defeat. China's government is far more worried about the fracturing of their own civilization into competing nation states, then they are with the US. Their entire economic policy is geared around social and political stability.

And that has left them weakened and in a poor position. Part of China's belligerence is in trying to provoke western powers to act overtly, so China can turn to its populace and say "See, they're the bad guys". Because Xi and the party know that they cannot continue to provide growing wealth to the masses--in fact, they know they can't even maintain what they have.

In fact, Xi and the party know that most of the gains that China's people have made in the past few decades are going to go into screaming reverse. So Xi and the party are working overtime to entrench themselves. And yes, it does appear that some of the party members have swallowed China's own kool-aid. They may try to take Taiwan. Even knowing it will kill millions of young men. Possibly because it will kill millions of young men.



Poland really doesn't get a vote on that matter. They can try to arrange for a sort of coalition to keep Russia in check and indeed, they're doing that now--but they're not going to have the strength to do more than protect themselves. They don't have the strength to eject Russia out of Eastern Europe.



That's doubtful. World Wars have always originated in Europe. And it has always been triggered around the Germans. Since the Germans are not in the game at the moment, it doesn't seem likely that a world war is imminent. Russia knows it can't win a war with Europe and America allied against it. The Kremlin is seeking thus to avoid a direct confrontation. Russia wants a creeping war.

Nor will the Middle East provide a World War, because Europe and the US are mostly going to keep out of it. Iran is strong, but a lot of its power has been whittled away in the past few years. They will be hard pressed to take Saudi Arabia, let alone press onto Israel. They are proficient in military capability, but most of their technology is old and irreplaceable. Closing the gulf won't destroy Saudi Arabia's money flows, because they have an alternative pipeline well beyond Iranian reach. It only hurts the customers who buy it, because they have to pay a premium over the reduced flow. Nor can Iran get its goods out either, so it's a double edged sword.

China and East Asia won't spill into a world war, because the moment the US cuts off oil shipments from the Middle East, it will probably send China's entire economy into an uncontrollable tailspin. China might lash out at nearby targets, such as Taiwan, India, Vietnam, and others--but Xi will be more preoccupied with using his troops to keep his own people in line and constantly worried about betrayals and internal challenges.

Any world war is probably decades away, closer to a century.



I don't think it will be far worse in terms of morale for America, but it will basically telegraph to the world that the US is not going to be there to defend you--and it will be a clear signal that Europe is not going to defend Eastern Europe from Russia.
Sixth, I do not agree about world war being decades to a century away.
The world is on the brink of war. Not just individual countries.

I am at the part where I will just keep repeating the same arguments over and over again.

I just think there is definitely war around the corner, and not just two nations. A world one.

I just wanted to post the article about the things going on
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
It was US intelligence agencies that gave the alert.
there is no reason to believe that they're lying simply so the Democrats can force conservatives to act as they want.
The same agencies who have a proven track record of lying for their political masters? Color me unconvinced.

That's a red line that the Russians cannot accept.
Red line is the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine (beyond advisors that is). If the red line was orientation towards NATO, then they would have done full invasion in 2014. They didn't.

That doesn't even bring into account the problems that the Russians are having with their demographics.
Sure it doesn't, if we would look at the Russian demographic problems we might think that they would shirk from carrying out invasion that would include battles in urban centers that dwarf Grozny by an order of magnitude and adding millions of hostile locals, ushering another bloody guerrilla war, sacrificing young men simply doesn't help solving demographic crunch. They won't be doing that unless they feel they have their backs to the wall.

There is strength in countries such as Poland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway
Sweden is a lost cause.

Look, I have just been pointing out war is literally around the corner
Yes, you have been doing that for the last two years, but you maybe it's time to face the harsh truth that all adult people have to face at some point in life, namely that not all childhood dreams come true, the war you crave might never come to pass, just like the Fulda Gap aficionados never got the great throw down with the Soviets they wished for.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
The same agencies who have a proven track record of lying for their political masters? Color me unconvinced.


Red line is the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine (beyond advisors that is). If the red line was orientation towards NATO, then they would have done full invasion in 2014. They didn't.


Sure it doesn't, if we would look at the Russian demographic problems we might think that they would shirk from carrying out invasion that would include battles in urban centers that dwarf Grozny by an order of magnitude and adding millions of hostile locals, ushering another bloody guerrilla war, sacrificing young men simply doesn't help solving demographic crunch. They won't be doing that unless they feel they have their backs to the wall.


Sweden is a lost cause.


Yes, you have been doing that for the last two years, but you maybe it's time to face the harsh truth that all adult people have to face at some point in life, namely that not all childhood dreams come true, the war you crave might never come to pass, just like the Fulda Gap aficionados never got the great throw down with the Soviets they wished for.
And this is where you are wrong.
I have claimed war was around the corner as in 5 to 10 years, always have been. I am just going off what I know.
May I be wrong? Sure, do I hope I am? Honestly yes, but i feel this is the start.
 

ATP

Well-known member
No, a multipolar world will not exist. no country that wants to rule will let it Bacle.

The next war WILL be a world war Sixth.
That is the thing, two many countries have lines drawn with others as allies. TO many are working closely with others.
Three areas are on the verge of war.
This new Ukraine Russia thing, it may or may not lead to war. We will see.
China and Taiwan.
Iran and Isreal.
Iran and Isreal is always going back and forth with small stuff.

I feel like there is no choice left but world war.

1.Multipolar world existed before 1945.
2.A - Nobody would fought for Ukraine.Russians could kill them all and still nobody care.
2.B - Japan would help Taiwan,India probably too - but Biden not.So,no WW there.
2.C - Izrael had tons of H bombs,Iran not even one.It would be no war.Besides,even if Iranians get some,fighting turks and Saudis is more important for them.So,no WW3 there,too.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
1.Multipolar world existed before 1945.
2.A - Nobody would fought for Ukraine.Russians could kill them all and still nobody care.
2.B - Japan would help Taiwan,India probably too - but Biden not.So,no WW there.
2.C - Izrael had tons of H bombs,Iran not even one.It would be no war.Besides,even if Iranians get some,fighting turks and Saudis is more important for them.So,no WW3 there,too.
Everytime a multipolar world existed, war soon followed.
The US great depression lead to the world hurting and Germany suffering
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
France seems to be going to more nuclear so there is that fir power wise in France.

Yes and that makes France formidable, but they have more immediate concerns south of them in Africa.
Welcome to the present, its not 20 years ago.
Unfortunately ideological greens exist, and have been allowed to accumulate undue influence in Western Europe's cultural and educational institutions.

Meanwhile, as France tries to milk money and an aftertaste of imperial greatness from Africa, Africa extends its reach into France.


That's doubtful. World Wars have always originated in Europe. And it has always been triggered around the Germans. Since the Germans are not in the game at the moment,
Big oversight. What the hell do you think the EU is?
They very much are in the game now, just by other means than usual.

Nor will the Middle East provide a World War, because Europe and the US are mostly going to keep out of it. Iran is strong, but a lot of its power has been whittled away in the past few years.
That's only because of the threat of american aircraft, ships, and ongoing sanction regime keeping them down.
Give them 5 years of sanction relief and guarantee that their invasion of SA won't get a Desert Storm treatment, and they will be in SA within 5-10 years.
Have you ever considered the issues with Ukraine stem more from Gorby redrawing internal Soviet borders so that chunks of Western Russia became Eastern Ukraine, and maybe Russia has a point about the Donbass and such that is inconvenient for Western narratives about Ukraine?
Yes, even more so, it has both "private" and "public" points about that.
Of course the "public" ones are very inconvenient to the west, as intended, and painting Russia as an innocent victim who by some divine right is entitled to a "sphere of influence" among nearby sovereign nations and equally divine right to hold it by any means necessary, the "private" ones, more of a mixed bag that is a shitshow not convenient to either side.
You cannot abide the US not being the sole superpower, and you cannot abide the US military not being the world's policeman, because it undermines all the lies and mistruths that have been building up for decades in DC to justify so many abuses of power.
Can you?
What strikes me is that westerners who are big fans of the "multipolar world" talking point tend to imply some truly stunning ideas about how that world would look like, some kind of hippy dream of lasting peace and prosperity, if not worldwide, then at least in their own country.

No, a multipolar world is a world where many major powers compete by all means available to make it a unipolar or bipolar world again.
A country that suffers great pains abandoning a trainwreck overdue to be abandoned (Afghanistan) and sticking its fingers in places where even the hawks struggle to figure out a solid realpolitik reason to stick fingers in (Libya, Syria), will not be able to keep its fingers out of the way more meaningful wars of a multipolar world.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Everytime a multipolar world existed, war soon followed.
The US great depression lead to the world hurting and Germany suffering
Woodrow Wilson's idiocy and greed lead to Germany suffering for 'starting' a war they didn't actually start, just fought well, and the Great Depression just added to it. Then the fucktard from Austria got going, and we ended up with WW2.

Also, no amount of US firepower will keep the world from going multi-polar again.

Nor do civies have any reason to believe WW3 wouldn't go to some level of MAD that ends up with more parts of the US radioactive. Our ABM is enough to stop NK or Iran if they go stupid, but it would barely blunt a combined or independent CCP/Russia countervalue salvo, even if they got wrecked in return.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Also, no amount of US firepower will keep the world from going multi-polar again.
That's why USA has formed its glorified by all major parties alliances and partnerships.
Some working better than others, but still, that's a lot of medium powers added to US firepower.
Nor do civies have any reason to believe WW3 wouldn't go to some level of MAD that ends up with more parts of the US radioactive. Our ABM is enough to stop NK or Iran if they go stupid, but it would barely blunt a combined or independent CCP/Russia countervalue salvo, even if they got wrecked in return.
You say that now, but this is a quickly developing technology.
If the Chinese and Russian generals are as sure of good ol' ICBMs being able to still maintain MAD as you are, why are the Chinese playing with hypersonics reentry vehicles and FOBS, while Russians introduce Bond supervillain level weapons like Status-6?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Yes, even more so, it has both "private" and "public" points about that.
Of course the "public" ones are very inconvenient to the west, as intended, and painting Russia as an innocent victim who by some divine right is entitled to a "sphere of influence" among nearby sovereign nations and equally divine right to hold it by any means necessary, the "private" ones, more of a mixed bag that is a shitshow not convenient to either side.
I think the lies that have piled up around Ukraine and what has happened their since back before WW1 are about as big as the radioactive debris pile sitting in it's northern reaches.
Can you?
What strikes me is that westerners who are big fans of the "multipolar world" talking point tend to imply some truly stunning ideas about how that world would look like, some kind of hippy dream of lasting peace and prosperity, if not worldwide, then at least in their own country.

No, a multipolar world is a world where many major powers compete by all means available to make it a unipolar or bipolar world again.
A country that suffers great pains abandoning a trainwreck overdue to be abandoned (Afghanistan) and sticking its fingers in places where even the hawks struggle to figure out a solid realpolitik reason to stick fingers in (Libya, Syria), will not be able to keep its fingers out of the way more meaningful wars of a multipolar world.
I do not think it will be a paradise, I'm not that naive.

But I also know we cannot prevent it anymore than we can stop the globe from spinning, so I'd rather prepare for, and adapt to, a multipolar world than waste time trying to maintain a unipolar world.

That's why USA has formed its glorified by all major parties alliances and partnerships.
Some working better than others, but still, that's a lot of medium powers added to US firepower.
What do you define as a 'medium power', I think I need to ask before I make any assumptions of which nations you are referring to.
You say that now, but this is a quickly developing technology.
If the Chinese and Russian generals are as sure of good ol' ICBMs being able to still maintain MAD as you are, why are the Chinese playing with hypersonics reentry vehicles and FOBS, while Russians introduce Bond supervillain level weapons like Status-6?
Because, as you said, they aren't just trusting their ICBMs?

Hypersonics need lasers, SHORAD, or shit like Iron Dome to reasonably intercept (and even then the warheads could have salvage fuses so they still go boom, just not directly on the target), have much smaller engagement windows, are more maneuverable because they are airbreathers (more stratospheric stealth cruise missile with a sprint phase at the end, than ICBM-lite) and can come from places that do not have the northern DEW lines and the ABMs in Alaska in the way.

Status-6 is what happened when some Russian realized that the Tsar Bomba warhead may not fit in a plane, but could fit in a sub/torpedo, and acted accordingly. Luckily it seems only 2 subs can actually carry them, and the torps are not being left 'on-station' at this point.

Then there's the Soviet 'mole missiles' which are pretty much uninterruptible earthquake bombs, likely deployed by subs, if they actually exist as more than propaganda and old Soviet BS. They are of limited use or dependability because of where they are (very hard to retrieve or refurbish a warhead buried in the continental slope, and every easy for it to fail if there are problems with the drilling device), but they could certainly cause problems on their own or used in concert with things like Status-6.
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
I am more worried about a Franco-German economic domination of Europe, a "Merkelreich" than Russian invasion.

The Russians and Putin, to make a long story short, want to be left the fuck alone and not be obligated to have Western liberal values, especially because they haven't been in an invasion mood since the end of the Soviet intervention with notable exception of Crimea, but that's because there is a very important naval base there besides a large population of Russians.

Considering "liberal" Europe is turning more authoritarian than Putin, I rather side with Moscow than Berlin-Washington-Paris.

European and American elites are far more dangerous than Putin. Or Russia.

China is literally, metaphorically and ideologically another beast. Another long story short , fuck them.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Welcome to the present, its not 20 years ago.

And what does that prove? Yes, they're concerned (at the present) with Green energy. That does not mean that France lacks power--as in military power. France has a very capable military and often performs its own military activities in West Africa and beyond.

Unfortunately ideological greens exist, and have been allowed to accumulate undue influence in Western Europe's cultural and educational institutions.

When you can afford to be pious at the expense of others, you'll find that money is no object. When you are suddenly alone and must pay for it yourself, you will be rather stingy.

Meanwhile, as France tries to milk money and an aftertaste of imperial greatness from Africa, Africa extends its reach into France.

The French are pricks, truly this is a shock to us all.

Big oversight. What the hell do you think the EU is?
They very much are in the game now, just by other means than usual.

They very much are not. The EU is not a military power, it is an economic bloc. This is rather obvious, because the moment they all stopped making money is when they began to turn on each other. The only meaningful way that the EU can integrate its various military assets is though NATO. The Germans, more or less lacking a military worth speaking of, is not suited to repel a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. You can expect that to change, but it's going to take years for the Germans to make the changes. Assuming they have the will left to make those changes.

That's only because of the threat of american aircraft, ships, and ongoing sanction regime keeping them down.
Give them 5 years of sanction relief and guarantee that their invasion of SA won't get a Desert Storm treatment, and they will be in SA within 5-10 years.

You ignore the greater threat to their oil shipments. The Iranians won't be the only ones targeting oil tankers leaving the gulf. Saudi military will target Iranian oil tankers. And at the same time there's an escalating war between the Gulf States, there's going to be an escalating conflict in Eastern Asia. The Iranians will not only have a massive logistic issue in their own back yard, but so will the Chinese. There is an overland route, but that is difficult to defend and to my knowledge, is not really an option at this point. Even if it were/is, the margins are going to be different going over land.

Nor are the Iranians without any weakness in their own weapons. Most of their aircraft are horribly outdated or cheap copies of horribly outdated tech. The Saudis, for all their horrific incompetence, are going to have a massive technological advantage in any battle. They can also be bolstered by regional allies such as Israel--who are not only competent, but technologically sophisticated.

And when you take the time to read a map, you'll notice that the Iranians are going to have just as much difficulty pushing out of their mountain nation as anyone would be in pushing in. Their supplies are still going to have to go through those mountains. Saudi Arabia may still fall (and that will be no big loss in my book), but it is not going to be easy and I don't think it's going to be quick. The only exception to that thought is if Saudi incompetence exceeds itself.

Yes, even more so, it has both "private" and "public" points about that.
Of course the "public" ones are very inconvenient to the west, as intended, and painting Russia as an innocent victim who by some divine right is entitled to a "sphere of influence" among nearby sovereign nations and equally divine right to hold it by any means necessary, the "private" ones, more of a mixed bag that is a shitshow not convenient to either side.

Then let Russia and their neighbors decide that. Why should America, half a world away, place itself as defender of Ukraine, when France and Germany drag their feet?

No, a multipolar world is a world where many major powers compete by all means available to make it a unipolar or bipolar world again.
A country that suffers great pains abandoning a trainwreck overdue to be abandoned (Afghanistan) and sticking its fingers in places where even the hawks struggle to figure out a solid realpolitik reason to stick fingers in (Libya, Syria), will not be able to keep its fingers out of the way more meaningful wars of a multipolar world.

I for my own part, do not think that the US will be too inclined to involve itself in many of the coming wars. It may sell weapons to Europeans, Saudis, or the Israelis, perhaps perform a few targeted strikes--but you will not get a lot of boots on the ground. The only place the US is intent on facing conflict head on at all is against China, which has decided it wants to sit itself upon America's throne.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top