3 ms·

> Just look at the extension of NATO, an organization explicitly considering Russia an enemy, to the East of East Germany, despite assurances from Bush to Groba

> Just look at the extension of NATO, an organization explicitly considering Russia an enemy, to the East of East Germany, despite assurances from Bush to Grobachev that it would never do so. And a very smart thing for countries that joined NATO to push for. Just look at the consequences of not doing that in Ukraine... Or Moldova before. Poor Russia cannot abuse the now NATO countries anymore... Give it a break trying to paint them into victim, Russia isn't afraid of anything with nukes and it's oversized military. Even the satellite strike is a warning to other parties to not get involved in its affairs or it CAN seriously hurt everyone without resorting to nukes. It's another type of MAD where everyone loses but Russia being so backwards it doesn't care. (i.e: don't help Ukraine or else)

tsimionescu 5y ago
> Give it a break trying to paint them into victim Russia is not a victim, absolutely - it's an autocratic regime trying to cling to the last vestiges of their former empire with ultra-violence when it feels threatened, with no respect for human life. It's also not some monstrous, one of a kind villain. Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? Would the US ever allow that to happen? No country with the power to stop such things allows hostile military presence to build up at its border - that's really the be-all, end-all of much of Russia's decisions. > Russia isn't afraid of anything with nukes and it's oversized military. Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. There are US nukes on Russia's borders (in Turkey, arguably in Israel; slightly further away, in UK, France). There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania).
- adriancr 5y ago
  > Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. Not really, depends what you compare. Perhaps hundred of times smaller budget wise, but capability it's not. > If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. Russia can easily block their own airspace to foreign fighters. They can also wipe out satellites as shown here. After that it becomes land warfare where they have superior numbers and wouldn't have issues repelling attack. > There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania). Sure, this prevents nuclear strikes hopefully... but would be overwhelmed fast by amount of rockets Russia can throw. Plus Russia has hyper-sonic missiles that hug the ground... and this would be a priority target...
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > Perhaps hundred of times smaller budget wise, but capability it's not. Budget accounts for a lot. > Russia can easily block their own airspace to foreign fighters. Citation needed. The combined air-forces of NATO are not "easily block"ed from anywhere. > After that it becomes land warfare where they have superior numbers and wouldn't have issues repelling attack. The USA has more active personnel than Russia, and Turkey (a NATO member) is another large military by active personnel. Technology wise, NATO is also far ahead (those budgets again). > Sure, this prevents nuclear strikes hopefully... The (unstated) point of the shield is to allow a NATO nuclear first-strike to go through without retaliation. The current shield is probably not enough to ensure Russia's military could be crippled with that first strike, but future versions of the shield may get there.
    - adriancr 5y ago
      > The (unstated) point of the shield is to allow a NATO nuclear first-strike to go through without retaliation. The current shield is probably not enough to ensure Russia's military could be crippled with that first strike, but future versions of the shield may get there. You do realize that if a nuke goes off in the atmosphere anti-missile-tracking becomes impossible? (good luck doing radar, thermal or anything else...) So anti-missile only works for preventing a very small first strike... (or a mistake or anything of the sort) Now, I would wager that something like Starlink where each satellite has anti-missile tech could prevent a first strike with ballistic missiles. Then you have missiles that hug the ground... those are impossible to detect or destroy... Radar needs some ground clearance, their speed also makes it had to detect in time and stop. As for the rest I'll try and read and fetch citations, but Russian anti-air are effective in downing stealth aircraft and most aircraft. (see Serbia in the 90s...), SR-71 or others which fly too fast might not be stoppable but those can't really cause too much harm. > The USA has more active personnel than Russia, and Turkey (a NATO member) is another large military by active personnel. Technology wise, NATO is also far ahead (those budgets again). How do you move those to Russia's border and do logistics? :), also I'm not sure about that... but will take your word for it. > Budget accounts for a lot. Sure... but forced draft + cheap weapons have won wars in the past...
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? There were NATO military bases being build in Ukraine or Moldova? > No country with the power to stop such things allows hostile military presence to build up at its border - that's really the be-all, end-all of much of Russia's decisions. This is one of most repeated "justifications" for Russian military aggression, but it makes no sense if you think about for a second. Russia have already had land border with several NATO member states (Estionia, Latvia) for quite some time now, and Pskov and Saint-Petersburg are still unmolested by NATO's hostile legions, as far as I'm aware. > Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. There are US nukes on Russia's borders (in Turkey, arguably in Israel; slightly further away, in UK, France). There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania). Are you saying anti missile systems in Europe can provide protection from whole Russian missile arsenal? What are you basing this on? Did you consider their capabilities to launch from submarines? All analyses that I read on the subject suggests that nuclear war between NATO and Russia is still MAD.

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Give it a break trying to paint them into victim Russia is not a victim, absolutely - it's an autocratic regime trying to cling to the last vestiges of their former empire with ultra-violence when it feels threatened, with no respect for human life. It's also not some monstrous, one of a kind villain. Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? Would the US ever allow that to happen? No country with the power to stop such things allows hostile military presence to build up at its border - that's really the be-all, end-all of much of Russia's decisions. > Russia isn't afraid of anything with nukes and it's oversized military. Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. There are US nukes on Russia's borders (in Turkey, arguably in Israel; slightly further away, in UK, France). There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania).

adriancr 5y ago
> Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. Not really, depends what you compare. Perhaps hundred of times smaller budget wise, but capability it's not. > If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. Russia can easily block their own airspace to foreign fighters. They can also wipe out satellites as shown here. After that it becomes land warfare where they have superior numbers and wouldn't have issues repelling attack. > There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania). Sure, this prevents nuclear strikes hopefully... but would be overwhelmed fast by amount of rockets Russia can throw. Plus Russia has hyper-sonic missiles that hug the ground... and this would be a priority target...
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > Perhaps hundred of times smaller budget wise, but capability it's not. Budget accounts for a lot. > Russia can easily block their own airspace to foreign fighters. Citation needed. The combined air-forces of NATO are not "easily block"ed from anywhere. > After that it becomes land warfare where they have superior numbers and wouldn't have issues repelling attack. The USA has more active personnel than Russia, and Turkey (a NATO member) is another large military by active personnel. Technology wise, NATO is also far ahead (those budgets again). > Sure, this prevents nuclear strikes hopefully... The (unstated) point of the shield is to allow a NATO nuclear first-strike to go through without retaliation. The current shield is probably not enough to ensure Russia's military could be crippled with that first strike, but future versions of the shield may get there.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    > The (unstated) point of the shield is to allow a NATO nuclear first-strike to go through without retaliation. The current shield is probably not enough to ensure Russia's military could be crippled with that first strike, but future versions of the shield may get there. You do realize that if a nuke goes off in the atmosphere anti-missile-tracking becomes impossible? (good luck doing radar, thermal or anything else...) So anti-missile only works for preventing a very small first strike... (or a mistake or anything of the sort) Now, I would wager that something like Starlink where each satellite has anti-missile tech could prevent a first strike with ballistic missiles. Then you have missiles that hug the ground... those are impossible to detect or destroy... Radar needs some ground clearance, their speed also makes it had to detect in time and stop. As for the rest I'll try and read and fetch citations, but Russian anti-air are effective in downing stealth aircraft and most aircraft. (see Serbia in the 90s...), SR-71 or others which fly too fast might not be stoppable but those can't really cause too much harm. > The USA has more active personnel than Russia, and Turkey (a NATO member) is another large military by active personnel. Technology wise, NATO is also far ahead (those budgets again). How do you move those to Russia's border and do logistics? :), also I'm not sure about that... but will take your word for it. > Budget accounts for a lot. Sure... but forced draft + cheap weapons have won wars in the past...
caskstrength 5y ago
> Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? There were NATO military bases being build in Ukraine or Moldova? > No country with the power to stop such things allows hostile military presence to build up at its border - that's really the be-all, end-all of much of Russia's decisions. This is one of most repeated "justifications" for Russian military aggression, but it makes no sense if you think about for a second. Russia have already had land border with several NATO member states (Estionia, Latvia) for quite some time now, and Pskov and Saint-Petersburg are still unmolested by NATO's hostile legions, as far as I'm aware. > Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. There are US nukes on Russia's borders (in Turkey, arguably in Israel; slightly further away, in UK, France). There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania). Are you saying anti missile systems in Europe can provide protection from whole Russian missile arsenal? What are you basing this on? Did you consider their capabilities to launch from submarines? All analyses that I read on the subject suggests that nuclear war between NATO and Russia is still MAD.