Should the US try to expand NATO to Russia's border?

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp
There are so many unemployed thugs and paramilitaries in that region, Russia just needs to add cash and weapons and set them loose.

Maybe you should think reallll hard about what you just wrote and then reevaluate your currently misguided perception of everything that happened there recently...

I don't have a misguided perception, you do. You don't know jack about Caucasus and how wars are fought over there. You probably think Georgia is a European country.
Reality is quite a bit different, I am afraid to inform you. When it comes to the Caucasus, everyone fights dirty, real dirty. Look at the Russians, first they fight against the Chechens, then the Chechens fight on Russia's side in Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does that make any sense? No, but then nothing in that region does.
If NATO can't handle it, it would be wise to keep out.

all you did right there is solidify my point.

You might wish to reconsider, or ponder further, just how/why the conflict in Georgia escalated as it did... you already gave the reason... now all you have to do is realize what you yourself said!

Russia needed an excuse to invade, right? How could they make that happen covertly?

Hmmm.. I wonder...

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp
There are so many unemployed thugs and paramilitaries in that region, Russia just needs to add cash and weapons and set them loose.

Maybe you should think reallll hard about what you just wrote and then reevaluate your currently misguided perception of everything that happened there recently...

I don't have a misguided perception, you do. You don't know jack about Caucasus and how wars are fought over there. You probably think Georgia is a European country.
Reality is quite a bit different, I am afraid to inform you. When it comes to the Caucasus, everyone fights dirty, real dirty. Look at the Russians, first they fight against the Chechens, then the Chechens fight on Russia's side in Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does that make any sense? No, but then nothing in that region does.
If NATO can't handle it, it would be wise to keep out.

all you did right there is solidify my point.

You might wish to reconsider, or ponder further, just how/why the conflict in Georgia escalated as it did... you already gave the reason... now all you have to do is realize what you yourself said!

Russia needed an excuse to invade, right? How could they make that happen covertly?

Hmmm.. I wonder...

OK, well if Russia can play Georgian president like a fiddle and provoke him to act the way it wants him to, do you really want him deciding whether NATO is involved in a war or not? Because if NATO expands into Georgia, it will have to defend it no matter how stupid of a move that guy makes or kiss Article 5 goodbye.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp
There are so many unemployed thugs and paramilitaries in that region, Russia just needs to add cash and weapons and set them loose.

Maybe you should think reallll hard about what you just wrote and then reevaluate your currently misguided perception of everything that happened there recently...

I don't have a misguided perception, you do. You don't know jack about Caucasus and how wars are fought over there. You probably think Georgia is a European country.
Reality is quite a bit different, I am afraid to inform you. When it comes to the Caucasus, everyone fights dirty, real dirty. Look at the Russians, first they fight against the Chechens, then the Chechens fight on Russia's side in Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does that make any sense? No, but then nothing in that region does.
If NATO can't handle it, it would be wise to keep out.

all you did right there is solidify my point.

You might wish to reconsider, or ponder further, just how/why the conflict in Georgia escalated as it did... you already gave the reason... now all you have to do is realize what you yourself said!

Russia needed an excuse to invade, right? How could they make that happen covertly?

Hmmm.. I wonder...

OK, well if Russia can play Georgian president like a fiddle and provoke him to act the way it wants him to, do you really want him deciding whether NATO is involved in a war or not? Because if NATO expands into Georgia, it will have to defend it no matter how stupid of a move that guy makes or kiss Article 5 goodbye.

How should Georgia have responded to Russia-backed (read: "funded") rebels in S.O.? I'm just curious to see what you would have done...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


You think the UK, France, and Germany are our enemies? You're completely off the deep end. They don't support us on everything, but they support us on the vast, vast majority. No sane person who had the slightest understanding of international relations would say that those countries are our enemies. Then again, I'm sure you're missing one or both of those attributes.

Yes, they're our enemies. They're an "ally" like Saudi Arabia is an "ally." It's only a matter of time before real conflict breaks out. I guess you'll realize it when you get drafted to fight them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy


You think the UK, France, and Germany are our enemies? You're completely off the deep end. They don't support us on everything, but they support us on the vast, vast majority. No sane person who had the slightest understanding of international relations would say that those countries are our enemies. Then again, I'm sure you're missing one or both of those attributes.

Yes, they're our enemies. They're an "ally" like Saudi Arabia is an "ally." It's only a matter of time before real conflict breaks out. I guess you'll realize it when you get drafted to fight them.

Well then you're either ignorant, stupid, or crazy.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: gevorg
Even if Georgian/Ukrainian politicians receive funds/support/promises to join NATO, it will be their current governments decision, not of their people. The only purpose of bringing Russia/Georgia to NATO is to piss off Russia. Recently, it seems some powers in the West really need that for something.

Russia and Georgia are strongly connected culturally, at least a third of Georgians live in Russia and support their families in Georgia. Ukrainians and Russians are connected even stronger, since they're both slavic. Any NATO alliance won't last long, but being a neighbor to a superpower is forever.

are you like the russian equivalent to the chinese apologists? Russia is not a superpower and never will be again, right now its a borderline failed state for gods sake.

Are you a neocon fascist who sticks his head in sand with your ass pointing up?

Russia has been and still is a superpower. It still has nukes on air, ground, sea and underwater that can be launched within seconds anywhere in the world. Enough of them to destroy every living thing on Earth, multiple times! Plus there are chemical and biological weapons too. It had this capability even during economic disasters of the 1990s. Now, its economic output has surpasses France's in 2007, and will exceeds Britain's by the end of 2008.

 

[MadRat]

When was the last time they sent out a nuclear powered missile submarine for longer than 6 months?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy


You think the UK, France, and Germany are our enemies? You're completely off the deep end. They don't support us on everything, but they support us on the vast, vast majority. No sane person who had the slightest understanding of international relations would say that those countries are our enemies. Then again, I'm sure you're missing one or both of those attributes.

Yes, they're our enemies. They're an "ally" like Saudi Arabia is an "ally." It's only a matter of time before real conflict breaks out. I guess you'll realize it when you get drafted to fight them.

My opinion of your opinion is that it's even loonier than the right-wing stuff here mostly.

But I'll ask, can you make some case for your claim?

I mean, we have warred with England, France and Germany, but can you make any case why our nations' interests would begin to lead to war in the foreseeable future?

You say it's 'like Saudi Arabia', but there are huge differences - no natural overlapping interests or much of common cultures, other than the Nixonian peace hobbled together with the US nobly protecting the ruling tyrants of Saudi Arabia to rule over the pawns in that country in exchange for their guaranteeing our access to their oil. That alone is some reason for the people of Saudi Arabia to have an issue with the US, not to mention its large movement with the Wahabi sect.

On the other hand, we have much more to gain from peace than war with our European allies - who are economic competitors, but big trade partners as well.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy


You think the UK, France, and Germany are our enemies? You're completely off the deep end. They don't support us on everything, but they support us on the vast, vast majority. No sane person who had the slightest understanding of international relations would say that those countries are our enemies. Then again, I'm sure you're missing one or both of those attributes.

Yes, they're our enemies. They're an "ally" like Saudi Arabia is an "ally." It's only a matter of time before real conflict breaks out. I guess you'll realize it when you get drafted to fight them.

My opinion of your opinion is that it's even loonier than the right-wing stuff here mostly.

But I'll ask, can you make some case for your claim?

I mean, we have warred with England, France and Germany, but can you make any case why our nations' interests would begin to lead to war in the foreseeable future?

You say it's 'like Saudi Arabia', but there are huge differences - no natural overlapping interests or much of common cultures, other than the Nixonian peace hobbled together with the US nobly protecting the ruling tyrants of Saudi Arabia to rule over the pawns in that country in exchange for their guaranteeing our access to their oil. That alone is some reason for the people of Saudi Arabia to have an issue with the US, not to mention its large movement with the Wahabi sect.

On the other hand, we have much more to gain from peace than war with our European allies - who are economic competitors, but big trade partners as well.

I really don't see too many similarities in culture between the US and several European countries other than that they are developed. There are more differences than similarities. What I find is that what you're saying (common cultures) is usually code that they are majority white and that we are majority white. However, the demographics are changing. Europeans are shrinking in population & aging. The US is increasing in its population in non-whites who have no ties to Europe and thus will not have irrational attachments to Europe.

With the decreasing European birthrate and continued refugee migration and the growing population of decimated former colonies of European empires, Europeans are becoming increasingly scared. The seeds are already being planted for a genocide to retain the racial balance in Europe. I doubt that the world will just sit by.

In regards to trade, again, demographics need to be considered. What do you think is going to happen to European trade as some countries shrink 50% in population by 2050 as well as age? It seems to me that we need to be thinking forward and looking at new alliances with emerging countries. In 7 years Europe's population will start declining.

Suppression of political parties, religious persecution, persecution of minorities, breeding ground for terrorists... a country like Germany is sounding more like Saudi Arabia.

They're just temporary allies like Saudi Arabia, alliances made out of convenience. I would perhaps put the UK out of the enemy category, but Germany, France, and others are not real allies.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Craig234

My opinion of your opinion is that it's even loonier than the right-wing stuff here mostly.

My top theory is that CanOWorms had a bad experience as a tourist in Europe at some point. That or maybe he hates white people? Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Craig234

My opinion of your opinion is that it's even loonier than the right-wing stuff here mostly.

My top theory is that CanOWorms had a bad experience as a tourist in Europe at some point. That or maybe he hates white people? Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Their political and social conditions are completely against American ideals and threaten us. The same people who criticize Saudi Arabia refuse to see that the same criticisms (and more) are applicable to our other supposed allies.

You're just too shortsighted to see it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: gevorg

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: gevorg
Even if Georgian/Ukrainian politicians receive funds/support/promises to join NATO, it will be their current governments decision, not of their people. The only purpose of bringing Russia/Georgia to NATO is to piss off Russia. Recently, it seems some powers in the West really need that for something.

Russia and Georgia are strongly connected culturally, at least a third of Georgians live in Russia and support their families in Georgia. Ukrainians and Russians are connected even stronger, since they're both slavic. Any NATO alliance won't last long, but being a neighbor to a superpower is forever.

are you like the russian equivalent to the chinese apologists? Russia is not a superpower and never will be again, right now its a borderline failed state for gods sake.

Are you a neocon fascist who sticks his head in sand with your ass pointing up?

Russia has been and still is a superpower. It still has nukes on air, ground, sea and underwater that can be launched within seconds anywhere in the world. Enough of them to destroy every living thing on Earth, multiple times! Plus there are chemical and biological weapons too. It had this capability even during economic disasters of the 1990s. Now, its economic output has surpasses France's in 2007, and will exceeds Britain's by the end of 2008.

Define "economic output". Russia still has a total GDP that lags far behind that of Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Not to mention the fact that as a whole the EU GDP is more than 10 times the Russian. It fares even worse in the per capita and PPP measurements.

Sure Russia has nukes and chemical weapons left over from the USSR. Their conventional forces however have been badly neglected and has left it with almost no ability to project power out of its region.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp
There are so many unemployed thugs and paramilitaries in that region, Russia just needs to add cash and weapons and set them loose.

Maybe you should think reallll hard about what you just wrote and then reevaluate your currently misguided perception of everything that happened there recently...

I don't have a misguided perception, you do. You don't know jack about Caucasus and how wars are fought over there. You probably think Georgia is a European country.
Reality is quite a bit different, I am afraid to inform you. When it comes to the Caucasus, everyone fights dirty, real dirty. Look at the Russians, first they fight against the Chechens, then the Chechens fight on Russia's side in Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does that make any sense? No, but then nothing in that region does.
If NATO can't handle it, it would be wise to keep out.

all you did right there is solidify my point.

You might wish to reconsider, or ponder further, just how/why the conflict in Georgia escalated as it did... you already gave the reason... now all you have to do is realize what you yourself said!

Russia needed an excuse to invade, right? How could they make that happen covertly?

Hmmm.. I wonder...

OK, well if Russia can play Georgian president like a fiddle and provoke him to act the way it wants him to, do you really want him deciding whether NATO is involved in a war or not? Because if NATO expands into Georgia, it will have to defend it no matter how stupid of a move that guy makes or kiss Article 5 goodbye.

How should Georgia have responded to Russia-backed (read: "funded") rebels in S.O.? I'm just curious to see what you would have done...

If the attacks it claimed are true, and not just an excuse it is making up, it should have targeted the artillery installations, not shelled a city and killed Russian troops. Saakashvili wanted an excuse to smack South Ossetia, he got it, but also gave Putin an excuse to smack him. That's Caucasus for ya. Your buddy Saakashvili is no democracy reformer either, he put down opposition, shut down free media, had opponents die under mysterious circumstances, etc and launched a vicious attack on civilians. So I really don't see why NATO is defending him, aside from the obvious Russophobia.

 

[manowar821]

Anyone who thinks that the USA needs to take action against Russia in any way shape or form is an absolute fool.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Anyone who thinks that the USA needs to take action against Russia in any way shape or form is an absolute fool.

I agree... sort of.

The same can be said of anyone who believes that Russia was justified in their recent actions.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: manowar821
Anyone who thinks that the USA needs to take action against Russia in any way shape or form is an absolute fool.

I agree... sort of.

The same can be said of anyone who believes that Russia was justified in their recent actions.

Right, they should have just allowed Georgians to keep shelling Tshinvali's residents and killing its peace keepers and citizens. Georgia keeps repeating the same mistakes expecting different outcomes, the definition of insanity. Does NATO want to be part of that?
The sooner Georgia accepts reality, the sooner it can move on with its life and stop this self destructive behavior. Georgian nationalists wanted "Georgia for (ethnic) Georgians," they got it, just a bit smaller than they expected
Time to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: gevorg

Russia has been and still is a superpower. It still has nukes on air, ground, sea and underwater that can be launched within seconds anywhere in the world. Enough of them to destroy every living thing on Earth, multiple times! Plus there are chemical and biological weapons too. It had this capability even during economic disasters of the 1990s. Now, its economic output has surpasses France's in 2007, and will exceeds Britain's by the end of 2008.

Define "economic output". Russia still has a total GDP that lags far behind that of Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Not to mention the fact that as a whole the EU GDP is more than 10 times the Russian. It fares even worse in the per capita and PPP measurements.

Sure Russia has nukes and chemical weapons left over from the USSR. Their conventional forces however have been badly neglected and has left it with almost no ability to project power out of its region.

Economic output usually means total GDP, and that is what I meant.

Russia's total GDP does *not* lack behind but exceeds France, Italy and Spain. Checkout CIA World Factbook. Russia's total GDP has exceeded France in 2007 and based on current growth rate will exceed UK this year. At the end of 2007, Russia's total GDP output is ranked #7, after US, China, Japan, India, Germany, and UK. Out of top 10 economic powers, Russia's GDP growth rate is third after China and India. Russia's per capita GDP is definitely low, but it still multiple times more than China's and India's.

EU's total GDP is about 7 times more than Russia's, and about 4% more than US. For more info see CIA :
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...ankorder/2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/libr........./2001rank.html</a></a>

Yes, Russia's conventional forces are behind and not as powerful as NATO's. But what makes Russia a superpower is that its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been and still capable of destroying the whole world. Its military technology still has area's that exceed its counterparts in NATO military technologies. Plus, recent high energy prices have accelerated the shift from Soviet era technologies to new technologies.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: gevorg

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: gevorg

Russia has been and still is a superpower. It still has nukes on air, ground, sea and underwater that can be launched within seconds anywhere in the world. Enough of them to destroy every living thing on Earth, multiple times! Plus there are chemical and biological weapons too. It had this capability even during economic disasters of the 1990s. Now, its economic output has surpasses France's in 2007, and will exceeds Britain's by the end of 2008.

Define "economic output". Russia still has a total GDP that lags far behind that of Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Not to mention the fact that as a whole the EU GDP is more than 10 times the Russian. It fares even worse in the per capita and PPP measurements.

Sure Russia has nukes and chemical weapons left over from the USSR. Their conventional forces however have been badly neglected and has left it with almost no ability to project power out of its region.

Economic output usually means total GDP, and that is what I meant.

Russia's total GDP does *not* lack behind but exceeds France, Italy and Spain. Checkout CIA World Factbook. Russia's total GDP has exceeded France in 2007 and based on current growth rate will exceed UK this year. At the end of 2007, Russia's total GDP output is ranked #7, after US, China, Japan, India, Germany, and UK. Out of top 10 economic powers, Russia's GDP growth rate is third after China and India. Russia's per capita GDP is definitely low, but it still multiple times more than China's and India's.

EU's total GDP is about 7 times more than Russia's, and about 4% more than US. For more info see CIA :
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library......rder/2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...ankorder/2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/l............1rank.html</a></a></a>

Yes, Russia's conventional forces are behind and not as powerful as NATO's. But what makes Russia a superpower is that its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been and still capable of destroying the whole world. Its military technology still has area's that exceed its counterparts in NATO military technologies. Plus, recent high energy prices have accelerated the shift from Soviet era technologies to new technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...tries_by_GDP_(nominal)

The data in the wiki page is cited and sourced from the IMF and World Bank as year end 07, the CIA fact book page seems to have 07 estimated figures.

Russia's gdp has been inflated by record oil and gas prices due to the speculation running rampant in the markets. We're now seeing retreats from those highs which haven't stopped.

Unconventional forces are little good when you have to fight a conventional war. Pretty much any 1st world country has the technology and the financial means to accomplish the same and they aren't superpowers. If the Russian army went against NATO today it would get obliterated, 20 years ago they would have had a decent shot.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: gevorg

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: gevorg

Russia has been and still is a superpower. It still has nukes on air, ground, sea and underwater that can be launched within seconds anywhere in the world. Enough of them to destroy every living thing on Earth, multiple times! Plus there are chemical and biological weapons too. It had this capability even during economic disasters of the 1990s. Now, its economic output has surpasses France's in 2007, and will exceeds Britain's by the end of 2008.

Define "economic output". Russia still has a total GDP that lags far behind that of Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Not to mention the fact that as a whole the EU GDP is more than 10 times the Russian. It fares even worse in the per capita and PPP measurements.

Sure Russia has nukes and chemical weapons left over from the USSR. Their conventional forces however have been badly neglected and has left it with almost no ability to project power out of its region.

Economic output usually means total GDP, and that is what I meant.

Russia's total GDP does *not* lack behind but exceeds France, Italy and Spain. Checkout CIA World Factbook. Russia's total GDP has exceeded France in 2007 and based on current growth rate will exceed UK this year. At the end of 2007, Russia's total GDP output is ranked #7, after US, China, Japan, India, Germany, and UK. Out of top 10 economic powers, Russia's GDP growth rate is third after China and India. Russia's per capita GDP is definitely low, but it still multiple times more than China's and India's.

EU's total GDP is about 7 times more than Russia's, and about 4% more than US. For more info see CIA :
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/libr........./2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library......rder/2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...ankorder/2001rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/l............k.html</a></a></a></a>

Yes, Russia's conventional forces are behind and not as powerful as NATO's. But what makes Russia a superpower is that its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been and still capable of destroying the whole world. Its military technology still has area's that exceed its counterparts in NATO military technologies. Plus, recent high energy prices have accelerated the shift from Soviet era technologies to new technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...tries_by_GDP_(nominal)

The data in the wiki page is cited and sourced from the IMF and World Bank as year end 07, the CIA fact book page seems to have 07 estimated figures.

Russia's gdp has been inflated by record oil and gas prices due to the speculation running rampant in the markets. We're now seeing retreats from those highs which haven't stopped.

Unconventional forces are little good when you have to fight a conventional war. Pretty much any 1st world country has the technology and the financial means to accomplish the same and they aren't superpowers. If the Russian army went against NATO today it would get obliterated, 20 years ago they would have had a decent shot.

That list in your wiki link is nominal GDP, while the one I was referring to by CIA is PPP GDP. CIA estimates are very accurate, they underestimated China's PPP GDP by only $39 million. The PPP GDP is a better indicator of a country's economy because it takes in account cost of living, inflation, etc. The actual data of PPP GDP is very close to CIA's estimates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Unconventional forces are plan B when you fight a conventional war. As soon as the conventional forces will start to get defeated, a country with unconventional forces will consider to use them. Both sides will know that, so the side with a stronger conventional forces will NOT start a war, knowing that the other side can resort to unconventional methods. Russia's conventional forces cannot match NATO's, but its enough to fight non-superpower armies and perform anti-terrorist operations. Also, unlike Russia, NATO is preoccupied with so many conflicts around the world, that it won't be able to get all them together in a hypothetical war with Russia.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: gevorg

That list in your wiki link is nominal GDP, while the one I was referring to by CIA is PPP GDP. CIA estimates are very accurate, they underestimated China's PPP GDP by only $39 million. The PPP GDP is a better indicator of a country's economy because it takes in account cost of living, inflation, etc. The actual data of PPP GDP is very close to CIA's estimates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Unconventional forces are plan B when you fight a conventional war. As soon as the conventional forces will start to get defeated, a country with unconventional forces will consider to use them. Both sides will know that, so the side with a stronger conventional forces will NOT start a war, knowing that the other side can resort to unconventional methods. Russia's conventional forces cannot match NATO's, but its enough to fight non-superpower armies and perform anti-terrorist operations. Also, unlike Russia, NATO is preoccupied with so many conflicts around the world, that it won't be able to get all them together in a hypothetical war with Russia.

On a per capita basis the Russian GDP (even considering PPP) is pretty weak for a country its size. Less than half that of developed Europe and almost four times less than the US.

The scenario you described puts Russia at a disadvantage in any conflict. Starting a war, getting you ass kicked, then threatening to use special weapons isn't a strategy. NATO has no interest in starting any kind of war with Russia. Russia however has rediscovered the utility of naked military force in intimidating its neighbors into line. Unfortunately for them that game is coming to a close and they know it, as evidenced by the events with Georgia.

The Russian Navy and Air force wouldn't have a chance against their NATO counterparts (which aren't doing much in Iraq or Afganistan at the moment) in a conflict, say invasion of a NATO member Baltic nation. Russia would lose control of the seas quite quickly and the skies shortly after that. Air superiority being the trump card to all ground combat it would be pretty much game over.

Russia is a regional power, not a superpower.

 

[gevorg]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: gevorg

That list in your wiki link is nominal GDP, while the one I was referring to by CIA is PPP GDP. CIA estimates are very accurate, they underestimated China's PPP GDP by only $39 million. The PPP GDP is a better indicator of a country's economy because it takes in account cost of living, inflation, etc. The actual data of PPP GDP is very close to CIA's estimates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Unconventional forces are plan B when you fight a conventional war. As soon as the conventional forces will start to get defeated, a country with unconventional forces will consider to use them. Both sides will know that, so the side with a stronger conventional forces will NOT start a war, knowing that the other side can resort to unconventional methods. Russia's conventional forces cannot match NATO's, but its enough to fight non-superpower armies and perform anti-terrorist operations. Also, unlike Russia, NATO is preoccupied with so many conflicts around the world, that it won't be able to get all them together in a hypothetical war with Russia.

On a per capita basis the Russian GDP (even considering PPP) is pretty weak for a country its size. Less than half that of developed Europe and almost four times less than the US.

The scenario you described puts Russia at a disadvantage in any conflict. Starting a war, getting you ass kicked, then threatening to use special weapons isn't a strategy. NATO has no interest in starting any kind of war with Russia. Russia however has rediscovered the utility of naked military force in intimidating its neighbors into line. Unfortunately for them that game is coming to a close and they know it, as evidenced by the events with Georgia.

The Russian Navy and Air force wouldn't have a chance against their NATO counterparts (which aren't doing much in Iraq or Afganistan at the moment) in a conflict, say invasion of a NATO member Baltic nation. Russia would lose control of the seas quite quickly and the skies shortly after that. Air superiority being the trump card to all ground combat it would be pretty much game over.

Russia is a regional power, not a superpower.

If you would have read my original post, I did say that per capita GDP for Russia is low comparing to US/EU. But their per capita GDP is still much higher than China and India, and you know how US/EU investment banks and outsourcing companies love China and India. There are two major indicators for economic health, first PPP GDP and then per capita GDP. Nominal GDP does not tell you much, ask any econ person.

Unlike NATO, Russia military has mostly been structured for defensive practices. NATO might not want to start a direct war with Russia (and I'm sure Russia doesn't either), but NATO did train the Georgian army that interrogated Russia to intervene with military forces. You seem to strongly underestimate the capabilities of Russian conventional forces with your "America is best at everything" mentality. I not going it argue with that. Just try to understand this: there are people in Russia (and NATO too of course), that can launch a military attack from space, air, ground and oceans that will destroy anything or everything on earth. The only thing that can stop it is diplomacy. Anyone who has this capability is a superpower.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: gevorg


If you would have read my original post, I did say that per capita GDP for Russia is low comparing to US/EU. But their per capita GDP is still much higher than China and India, and you know how US/EU investment banks and outsourcing companies love China and India. There are two major indicators for economic health, first PPP GDP and then per capita GDP. Nominal GDP does not tell you much, ask any econ person.

Unlike NATO, Russia military has mostly been structured for defensive practices. NATO might not want to start a direct war with Russia (and I'm sure Russia doesn't either), but NATO did train the Georgian army that interrogated Russia to intervene with military forces. You seem to strongly underestimate the capabilities of Russian conventional forces with your "America is best at everything" mentality. I not going it argue with that. Just try to understand this: there are people in Russia (and NATO too of course), that can launch a military attack from space, air, ground and oceans that will destroy anything or everything on earth. The only thing that can stop it is diplomacy. Anyone who has this capability is a superpower.

The majority of China and India skipped the industrial revolution until relatively recently in their histories, the same isn't true of Russia.

Nuclear/chem/bio weaponry and their delivery systems aren't a major endeavor for any first world nation (or even many second world nations) so that isn't the only qualifier for being a superpower. Russia lacks any significant conventional force projection outside its region, those capabilities died with the USSR.