Russia 'goes to war' with Georgia (3 Viewers)

[Slidey]

You do realise Russia is the #1 supplier of arms and energy to the world? The fuck would they care what a bunch of hypocrites think? You actually think anyone is going to stop them?

Um... sorry? In case you haven't noticed, Russia isn't the superpower it used to be. Its population growth is negative and while its economy is growing again, it is still fairly fragile - most of the GDP is situated in Moscow and Kaliningrad (which is a tiny state in the middle of Europe, not in Russia). Moreover, in terms of arms supply, Israel will soon usurp their role as main arms supply in India, for a start. Meanwhile its scientific research (specifically military R&D) is fairly cutting edge, but it suffers significant roll-out problems - many of its troops are still equipped with legacy equipment and poorly trained. To further compound the situation, while many Russians blindly support Vladimir Putin and his minions (69% said they'd vote for whoever Putin recommends as president), I suspect that support would fall off quite drastically if it ever came to another World War - especially one which was comprised of Russia vs the World. Russia has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, but few of the technological and developmental reasons for it which Australia, Ireland, etc do. Things in Russia will only get better in time (indeed poverty has dropped from 40% to 14% in the past 8 years), and it's well on track for that - but don't pretend the people are all blindly happy, or that they could cope with another war (especially one reminiscent of the Cold War). Because if they can't, then we're probably talking a revolution if Russia went to war.

And even if it were still a powerful economic and military power to rival America, that doesn't change the fact that it'd be Russia vs the West. In terms of troops, it's outnumbered something like at least 3 to 1. In terms of military spending, it is outnumbered 20 to 1. In terms of nuclear warheads, NATO is many targets, Russia is one target (and a basically a small one at that - Moscow).

Basically, these days globalisation does not permit war.

Anyway, I welcome the fact that there is a worthy competitor to America again to balance the power. India minds their own business, China's human rights record is horrible, and the EU is too fractured to be a coherent entity. But Russia and America I can get behind.

BTW: Russia isn't as big an energy supplier as you think. Not in the sense of being some monopolistic energy power that can piss off and cut off who it pleases with no consequences. Not when the market is spread out so 'evenly' over Australia, Canada, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, the Americas, etc.

To be honest, it amazes me that in today's climate, the public's misconceptions about nuclear energy are catered for at the cost of energy security. Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves, yet we don't have any non-scientific nuclear plants (although granted, we produce most of all the enrgy we need, and could easily account for shortfall). But places like Germany would get hit by any long-term Russian supply disruption (greater than 90 days - the length their backup oil lasts), and yet it is starting to close down its nuclear power plants (even though 70% of the public is opposed to their closure). Although I think that move has lost momentum slightly due to recent tensions with Russia as well as peak oil. It's ironic, because Germany would have to import energy from France to make up the defecit - but France runs on nuclear energy! Similarly, Australia exports its uranium to Russia, China, etc, which use it for nuclear fuel.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Some of the stuff you said is true, some is not.

You are forgetting many things. First of all, Russia used to have a massive army of 3mill or so, and they laid off most of their soldiers and most conscripts. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about the Russian military which are not longer true.

Very much so the same thing happened in China. Both countries now have relatively small militaries, because in modern times, numbers simply do not matter squat, due to technology.

It's not a matter of troops vs troops. Troops are killed easily by many different weapons. Entire military bases can be destroyed by artillery and long-range ballstic missiles (with non-nuclear warheads).

Any fighting done in a world war, would be small-scale, and more so mopping up after massive strategic strikes of the target area than anything else.

As for people's support for Putin, he is supported because everything he is doing is right - it's simple. Russia isn't going to start any world wars, it would be USA. Hence, nobody in Russia (and probably not many people from other countries) are going to blame the Russian government.

As for military stuff, etc, everything that needs to be mass-produced in Russia largely is. There is no point to mass produce many things however, because newer and better models thereof are in development. PAK-FA is one example of this. There is currently a big emphasis towards T-90s and S-400s.

The term "Superpower" is very very misleading, and I would say lost all meaning. People say USA is an economic superpower, but USA's economy is the most fragile in the world. It is a fundamentally flawed economy that is doomed to collapse in the future. It's military is not very impressive either. It's army has been labelled as a mercenary army, it's R&D & production is plagued by corruption resulting in extremely high costs of arms (which is the only reason why the US military budget is higher than Russia's), it's forces are so stretches, analysts say that if the US mainland was attacked, they wouldn't have enough forces to defend it. As for diplomacy, well USA has quite frankly became a joke, especially after Iraq.

GDP is also a stupid measure of economy, since it measures the cost of goods and services produced - but not actual industrial production - which is the only thing of real value during a war. Take a random movie studio in California for instance, while contributing a lot to USA's GDP through worldwide movie sales, it wouldn't be able to product tanks, planes, artillery or small arms if war came. A car factory in Russia would. And the machinery manufacturing business is very big in Russia, due to the low prices of raw materials, especially metals.

This is an area where Russia and China especially would benefit. And once again, Russia and China are directly allied. If USA even hinted at a hot war, China could drop it's share of US debt, and that would be the end of the US economy right there.

The whole notion of a war is ridiculous.

As for energy, this is a very good article on the subject;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20060603&articleId=2571

 

[writer'sblock]

With the number of carriers the US has can anyone imagine the inminate desruction one can accomplish? Russia will not fight - their armorments are obsolete - the only thing keeping the economy in growth is the pipelines to Europe, Europe is the only pace where the oil and gas can go with ease - the population is so unhealthy; the poppulation reduces by 800,000 on average for the past few years. Russia wants to be feared to it can gain political support from their sphere of infulence which some sects have been westerised of late.
Russia is not a bear, but a battered cub.
A larger scale even will not occur whilst Russia needs to exploit its oil and gas reserves to sustain its economy.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Russian population unhealthy? Mind backing this up?

Unlike USA and some others, Russia has public healthcare, so everyone regardless of wealth can be treated. In addition, Russia has a low obesity rate, unlike most Western countries.

It's armorments are not obsolete by a longshot.

The problem with Carriers, is that they can be very very very easily taken out. In recent years, there have been a lot of reports of Chinese subs sneaking up on US carriers without being detected - food for thought.

The reason the Russian population reduces is a simple case of a low birth rate. This is a problem shared by virtually every developed country in the world. It's a demographic problem, and one which the government of Russia is taking a serious approach to fixing.

 

[Slidey]

Some of the stuff you said is true, some is not.

You are forgetting many things. First of all, Russia used to have a massive army of 3mill or so, and they laid off most of their soldiers and most conscripts. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about the Russian military which are not longer true.

Um, no, I was including their army of 3 million. America alone also has an army of 3 million. I included backup reserves and paramilitary.

Very much so the same thing happened in China. Both countries now have relatively small militaries, because in modern times, numbers simply do not matter squat, due to technology.

No shit. But that happened in Europe and America, too, so moot point.

It's not a matter of troops vs troops. Troops are killed easily by many different weapons. Entire military bases can be destroyed by artillery and long-range ballstic missiles (with non-nuclear warheads).

Again, no shit. So if it's military technology that matters, what's your point? Because NATO comprises 70% of the world's defence spending and R&D.

Any fighting done in a world war, would be small-scale, and more so mopping up after massive strategic strikes of the target area than anything else.

You don't know what you're talking about. Last World War was nothing like that, and the Cold War wasn't a war but a surgical operation of prevention. Any war today would be all or nothing, or it'd be another Cold War. Thing is, there's no ideological opposition, so if it's another Cold War you're going to have just Russia vs the World. It wouldn't happen because nobody would pay attention to Russia. The West would just eventually economically isolate it like North Korea and go about our normal business.

MARKETS ADAPT.

As for people's support for Putin, he is supported because everything he is doing is right - it's simple. Russia isn't going to start any world wars, it would be USA. Hence, nobody in Russia (and probably not many people from other countries) are going to blame the Russian government.

Putin is a downright cold-blooded bastard. He's 'evil' by normal definitions, and I loathe the man. But he got Russia running pretty well, cares about its future, and kept the human rights abuses to a minimum.

That doesn't mean the people blindly support him with their lives.

And if you think America is going to start a war with anything resembling a democracy, you're absolutely deluded.

As for military stuff, etc, everything that needs to be mass-produced in Russia largely is. There is no point to mass produce many things however, because newer and better models thereof are in development. PAK-FA is one example of this. There is currently a big emphasis towards T-90s and S-400s.

How irrelevant.

The term "Superpower" is very very misleading, and I would say lost all meaning. People say USA is an economic superpower, but USA's economy is the most fragile in the world.

I don't have to be an economist to tell you that's 100% bullshit.

It is a fundamentally flawed economy that is doomed to collapse in the future.

Oh dear, spare me!

It's military is not very impressive either. It's army has been labelled as a mercenary army, it's R&D & production is plagued by corruption resulting in extremely high costs of arms (which is the only reason why the US military budget is higher than Russia's), it's forces are so stretches, analysts say that if the US mainland was attacked, they wouldn't have enough forces to defend it. As for diplomacy, well USA has quite frankly became a joke, especially after Iraq.

Yeah, their arms cost a lot because they're generally better than anything currently in existence. You don't even have a clue about half the stuff they work on.

You're trying to tell me that America, which comprises 50% of the world's military R&D defence spending, just pisses it all down the drain and gets nothing out of it? Even if they pissed away 90% of their budget, they'd still be spending as much on military as Russia.

GDP is also a stupid measure of economy, since it measures the cost of goods and services produced - but not actual industrial production - which is the only thing of real value during a war. Take a random movie studio in California for instance, while contributing a lot to USA's GDP through worldwide movie sales, it wouldn't be able to product tanks, planes, artillery or small arms if war came. A car factory in Russia would. And the machinery manufacturing business is very big in Russia, due to the low prices of raw materials, especially metals.

Yeah news flash: NATO and allies still have far more manufacturing capability than Russia.

News flash two: Much of Russia's manufacturing industry is in Kaliningrad, which would fall to NATO almost immediately, and even if it didn't is still very cut off from Russia, being landlocked by NATO.

This is an area where Russia and China especially would benefit. And once again, Russia and China are directly allied. If USA even hinted at a hot war, China could drop it's share of US debt, and that would be the end of the US economy right there.

China is far and away most likely to remain neutral, passively supporting Russia through trade at most. You should also check their alliance; it's a purely pragmatic one these days. China won't piss away their position in the world for Russia.

The whole notion of a war is ridiculous.

It's basically impossible for any two democracies to go to war these days. So why try to argue about how powerful Russia is and how they can crush the West?

 

[Slidey]

The reason the Russian population reduces is a simple case of a low birth rate. This is a problem shared by virtually every developed country in the world. It's a demographic problem, and one which the government of Russia is taking a serious approach to fixing.

Unfortunately, it's far more severe in Russia. I believe it's levelled off somewhat (still negative, but not getting worse), but the 1990's economic crises from the breakup of the USSR, coupled with the loss of the Cold War, coupled with the population growth stagnation typical of countries leaving the industrial era just compounds it.

I believe the only Western societies with replacement level fertility are America, India, Turkey, and Israel (and possibly New Zealand). Australia makes it if we include immigration. China and Europe are starting to fall backwards. Japan is really fucked. It's good, because when Australia starts facing population ageing problems we can just look at how Russia, Europe and Japan handled it.

I wonder what Mongolia's growth rate is like.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Russian population unhealthy? Mind backing this up?

Unlike USA and some others, Russia has public healthcare, so everyone regardless of wealth can be treated. In addition, Russia has a low obesity rate, unlike most Western countries.

Wow India and china also have public health care, just like Russia , all of them have a public healthcare system, rotting, understaffed and lacks any modern technology. It is not surprising most Russians with money goes to USA and the west for treatment, By the way life expectancy in Russia is 65 years compared to 78 years in the USA.

Russians has low obesity because they are STARVING just like Ethiopians!

It's armorments are not obsolete by a longshot.

The problem with Carriers, is that they can be very very very easily taken out. In recent years, there have been a lot of reports of Chinese subs sneaking up on US carriers without being detected - food for thought.

it was a one off incident not a LOT. stop exaggerating chinese or Russia's military power , they might have man power, they simply cant match US military superiority.

The reason the Russian population reduces is a simple case of a low birth rate. This is a problem shared by virtually every developed country in the world. It's a demographic problem, and one which the government of Russia is taking a serious approach to fixing.

Russian population declined because of 3rd world disease like TB, Malnutrition, Alcoholism, Suicide and everything associated with poverty.

 

[_dhj_]

Putin is the man. I think it's great that he's resurrected Russia's national pride.
Also Russia gained significantly at the expense of the US and NATO through this chapter. Naive Georgia was of course the biggest loser. From now on, Russian sponsored militia forces can harass Georgia at will from the two regions. Of course Georgia can't declare war on the two regions since they are purported to be still part of Georgia.

 

[HalcyonSky]

russian girls are well fit

 

[Iron]

Why's it great? World peace and all that
Also,
i've missed you my friend
i love you
/tears

 

[Slidey]

russian girls are well fit

Second.

 

[Silver Persian]

I went to Russia in the Winter holidays, and no-one seemed to be starving on the streets.

There are a lot of starving cats in Istanbul tho

 

[Slidey]

Poverty in Russia is down to 14% now (was 40% in 2000). Comparatively, poverty in America is 12%.

I think America's definition of poverty is more generous than Russia's (i.e. by American standards, Russia's poverty would be higher), but the point is, Russia has managed to really tackle the heart of the problem.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

And if you think America is going to start a war with anything resembling a democracy, you're absolutely deluded.

No, they just fund civil wars in such nations.

The problem with Carriers, is that they can be very very very easily taken out. In recent years, there have been a lot of reports of Chinese subs sneaking up on US carriers without being detected - food for thought.

Here you're completely right - but for the wrong reasons. If you'll read my post a few pages back it goes into decent depth about it. Basically, in a large scale shooting war, the position of every American carrier group is well known. Some could be lost to the sneaky sub, but the majority would be damaged by long range Backfire's. If you read Red Storm Rising, you'll get a basic idea of it all. Basically, the surface fleet is becoming slightly outdated due to their absurd vulnerability to missiles and planes, compared to their huge cost to build, staff and maintain. They wouldn't get all, but any US carrier group in the Northern Atlantic or North Pacific would be in very real danger, and they would likely lose a far few ships from it, and potentially a carrier.

There's one misconception I would like to challenge though, and that is that there can be no large scale conflict between nuclear powers. While true to an extent, it's not entirely right. Russia won't do this, though, because it would certainly lose a large scale conflict against NATO on conventional terms, but it could fight a conventional war for a period. Basically, nukes would stay entirely out of play until one side got close to a very real loss, because the threat of a total retaliatory strike is just too great. It's why most nations with tactical nukes have very few modern plans to use them - just because the use of a tactical nuke raises the stakes to anihilation standards.

So basically, shooting wars can happen between major nuclear powers (Pakistan and India are a good example), but only in a limited sense. It won't happen with Russia mostly because Russia would lose a shooting war without nukes, and so, won't do it.

Also, the Crimea is aflood with Russian passports. The Crimea, though Ukrainian, was technically of the Russian SSR until the 1950's, and is largely ethnically Russian as well as Ukrainian (which, in all reality, are incredibly intertwined anyway, Canadian and American kind of stuff). Russia isn't happy about the Ukrainians being rather uppitry, and especially not happy about the Ukrainians barring it's Black Sea fleet re-entry during the Georgian conflict. It'll be interesting to see if they can use their "protecting their citizens" cassus belli again, or rather, if the Ukrainians will be stupid enough to do something to let them use it.

And lastly, people seem to forget that the Russian equipment and technology is on many levels at par or near the Americans. The main difference between the two is the quality of the opperator. The American and Europeans just train their pilots, soldiers and tankers to a level far above any armed forces that use Russian equipment, including the Russians themselves. It would be interesting to see a conflict of Eastern equipment versus Western equipment where the operators of the Russian equipment aren't trained to third world standards with similar maintenance.

 

[Omnidragon]

People are just winning arguments by sheer amounts of text.
Half of what people like Slidey say are just so out of the blue but no one has the time/can be bothered to write long passages like him to argue.

 

[Slidey]

People are just winning arguments by sheer amounts of text.
Half of what people like Slidey say are just so out of the blue but no one has the time/can be bothered to write long passages like him to argue.

Sorry, did you have a point? Both Starcraftmazter and Nelson have posted equally long stuff. I don't pull Nelson's posts apart because they actually make, you know, sense compared to Starcraftmazter's insane rantings.

Fair enough that you reject what I say because it's not purely anti-American, pro-China ranting - I get that stuff makes you happy. But if you're going claim I'm wrong, at least have the balls to back it up.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Um, no, I was including their army of 3 million. America alone also has an army of 3 million. I included backup reserves and paramilitary.

The Russian army is a bit over a million, Spetsnaz and interior troops made up and additional 350-400k, which would be considered paramilitary.

Russian reservists are counted by the ministry as anyone who has served in the military, which would be almost everyone due to past conscription. This number is around 20 million, and they are never called in, they are not fitted with weapons or gear, they don't have frequent training, etc - it's literally a reserve of people they can call on in times of serious wars. Not like the Australian reserve for instance, the Russian reserve is completely different.

No shit. But that happened in Europe and America, too, so moot point.

It's not a point, it's a basis which supports the argument that troop numbers are irrelevant. If these countries really cared about having a lot of troops, they would keep them - but it makes no difference to winning and losing large scale wars.

Again, no shit. So if it's military technology that matters, what's your point? Because NATO comprises 70% of the world's defence spending and R&D.

My point is that your argument for Russian troops being outnumbered by Western troops is irrelevant.

R&D spending is subjective. 1 USD goes further in Russia than it does in USA, because Russian military contractors are state-owned, hence they are not going to rip off the government, because the government keeps a very close watch on them. They have no executives to pay billions of dollars to, no investors to pay dividends to, no real need for significant profiteering, etc. This is combined with the overall fact that everything is produced cheaper in Russia.

You don't know what you're talking about. Last World War was nothing like that

You once again make me laugh.

so if it's another Cold War you're going to have just Russia vs the World. It wouldn't happen because nobody would pay attention to Russia. The West would just eventually economically isolate it like North Korea and go about our normal business.

No, it would be SCO vs NATO, and everyone else would be neutral. And the west cannot economically isolate Russia, or their economies will instantly collapse, from the lack of trade.

MARKETS ADAPT.

You need to understand the concept of perpetually growing economies, and why they will collapse without an adequate and linearly priced supply of raw resources.

That doesn't mean the people blindly support him with their lives.

Putin isn't going to start any wars (he isn't even the president anymore).

And if you think America is going to start a war with anything resembling a democracy, you're absolutely deluded.

And if you think America is a democracy or actually cares about this sort of thing, you're absolutely deluded.

How irrelevant.

Then I guess your "point" about a lack of military production in Russia is also irrelevant.

I don't have to be an economist to tell you that's 100% bullshit.

Actually, you do.

Yeah, their arms cost a lot because they're generally better than anything currently in existence. You don't even have a clue about half the stuff they work on.

No, actually you dont.

Tanks: Russia has laser-targeting systems, anti-projectile defenses, reactive armour, and autoleaders on their latest tanks. USA has none of this.

Planes: Russia has 3 dimensional thrust vectoring engines, 400KMs+ radars (on mig-31s) and missiles with 400km+ range. Plasma Stealth technology. Successful testing of forward-swept wings (su-47), and USA once again, has none of this.

Ships: All russian ships have missiles which outrange US counterparts by 3-4 times. This is a simple fact which leads to the simple conclusion that any US fleet would be destroyed before it is within range to engage. Heavy cruisers like Kirov have the capability to engage and take out entire CAGs.

Subs: Akula II, 'nuff siad. No sub is quieter.

Missiles: Russia has always been the leader in missile technology. S-400, is the only missile system in the world capable of detecting stealth aircraft with very low RCS at long ranges. Experts put mig-31s radars as being able to detect USA's stealthiest plane - f22a at around 70kms. Given that an F22a cannot carry long-range missiles in it's underbelly, only on pylons - which would compromise it's stealth, it once again would be engaged and destroyed before it comes into range to attack, by Russia's interceptors.
Russian ICBMs have always been the best. Russia currently has the biggest, the fastest, and the deadliest ICBMs.

By the way, did you hear the latest news, on Russia testing an ICBM which uses stealth technologies to evade radar and flies in unpredictable patterns? Topol-M is also made of special materials which would be impenetrable by USA's SDI system.

Russia also has the highest yield non-nuclear bomb, which they again tested earlier this year.

tl;dr: I don't know where you get your fantasies about US technological superiority.

You're trying to tell me that America, which comprises 50% of the world's military R&D defence spending, just pisses it all down the drain and gets nothing out of it?

Pretty much, yes. Just look at Australian senate enquiries into the F-35, and you'll know what I mean.

Yeah news flash: NATO and allies still have far more manufacturing capability than Russia.

Do they?

Like the old tale goes, American factories are designed to produce cookies, and are fitted to produce tanks during wartime. Russian factories are designed to produce tanks, and are fitted to produce cookies in peacetime.

USA's production is always declining to China and Russia (surprise surprise). Germany, I doubt will fight against Russia, given Russia accounts for the majority of it's fuel supplies. I doubt any other NATO country can claim to have as high production as USA and Germany.

News flash two: Much of Russia's manufacturing industry is in Kaliningrad, which would fall to NATO almost immediately, and even if it didn't is still very cut off from Russia, being landlocked by NATO.

Several things here.

1.

Kaliningrad Oblast is the most heavily militarized area of the Russian Federation, and the density of military infrastructure is the highest in Europe

They can try, but they will fail.

2. You realise, the Russian army, specifically T-80s, are designed to roll across Europe or USA in days? If Poland dares, they will be overrun overnight.

3. Apart from that, to claim that most of Russia's manufacturing industry is in Kaliningrad, must be a joke.

China is far and away most likely to remain neutral, passively supporting Russia through trade at most. You should also check their alliance; it's a purely pragmatic one these days. China won't piss away their position in the world for Russia.

If you are going to claim China will stay neutral, may as well claim USA will stay neutral.

It's basically impossible for any two democracies to go to war these days. So why try to argue about how powerful Russia is and how they can crush the West?

Simply because if Russia was not powerful enough to deter NATO with means other than nuclear weapons, then war would be a very real possibility.

It is not surprising most Russians with money goes to USA and the west for treatment

It's not surprising you would make a blunt statement like that without backing it up.

Russians has low obesity because they are STARVING just like Ethiopians!

Don't make me laugh, please.

it was a one off incident not a LOT. stop exaggerating chinese or Russia's military power , they might have man power, they simply cant match US military superiority.

Actually, it has happened several times.

Russian population declined because of 3rd world disease like TB, Malnutrition, Alcoholism, Suicide and everything associated with poverty.

Russian HDI is considered as High. As for poverty, you should check what percentage of people in USA live under poverty before claiming Russians are living in poverty. And you should check the GNI index for both countries.

Enough with your BS please, get a clue.

The main difference between the two is the quality of the opperator. The American and Europeans just train their pilots, soldiers and tankers to a level far above any armed forces that use Russian equipment, including the Russians themselves. It would be interesting to see a conflict of Eastern equipment versus Western equipment where the operators of the Russian equipment aren't trained to third world standards with similar maintenance.

This is a problem which is once again being addressed. The flight hours of Russian pilots for example have been rising by approximately 40-50 every year, and are now more or less on-par with their US counterparts.

I believe the goal is to have a fully modernised military by 2012-2014.

 

[Slidey]

Let me know how your glorious Russian empires goes with crushing the infidels in 20 years time, Starcraftmazter.

In the mean time, I think I'll stick to arguing with people who aren't divorced from reality (Admiral Nelson's a pretty smart chap). You can... I dunno, keep trying to convince people that evolution is a scientific conspiracy (you're still doing that, right?)

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Let me know if you're interested in a serious argument instead of just throwing meaningless insults around in an effort to detract from the subject at hand.

 

[Enteebee]

Let me know if you're interested in a serious argument instead of just throwing meaningless insults around in an effort to detract from the subject at hand.

You made the point that Putin is no longer president.

You have failed Russian politics imo.