Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was 26 when Reagan was elected. This situation is unprecedented. Reagan was never this reckless.
I'm so sorry if the truth of this situation disturbs the bubble of ignorance you live it, but your opinion, posted over and over again, is rooted in delusion.
The only bright spot I can find in this whole thing, is the Democrats occupy the central cities of the US. You know, the targets.
You appear to be pretty ignorant about Reagan - along with everything else. Reagan imposed a whole new set of economic sanctions on the Soviet Union (the National Security Decision Directive 75) - which played a major part in bringing down the Soviet Union.
The fact is, it's been shown time and again, that sanctions can have a very substantial impact on detering bad behavior. Such sanctions played helped bring down the Soviet, and they are now having a huge impact on Russia.
The only difference is now Putin is in charge and he is like a caged animal when cornered. He knows he may only have 2 more years of a weakened USA and will take his chances as well as Reagan and Obama have taken theirs. Plus, now he is BFFF with China......Different world now.
The only difference is now Putin is in charge and he is like a caged animal when cornered. He knows he may only have 2 more years of a weakened USA and will take his chances as well as Reagan and Obama have taken theirs. Plus, now he is BFFF with China......Different world now.
The UE and US are China's 2 top trading partners.
Russia barely makes China's "top 10" trading partners - with just 1/10th the trade of EITHER of those 2 regions (and just 1/20th of the combination of the 2). China is NOT going to risk losing the business of it's top 2 trading partners to side with with nation that has just 5% of the trade of the other 2.
Get real.
The UE and US are China's 2 top trading partners.
Russia barely makes China's "top 10" trading partners - with just 1/10th the trade of EITHER of those 2 regions (and just 1/20th of the combination of the 2). China is NOT going to risk losing the business of it's top 2 trading partners to side with with nation that has just 5% of the trade of the other 2.
Get real.
Ken
I hope you are right. But when you post a response, must you be so nasty? Why don't you grow up and I will promise to get real.......
Russia's economy is in large part based on military and he could make sizable territorial gains in eastern Europe without much resistance.
The US and NATO could not economically afford to fight a long term boots on the ground war in eastern Europe either financially or from a perspective of public support.
Eastern Europe is for all practical purposes NATO now, and their militaries are filled with people who didn't like it one single bit when they were at Russia's beck and call. There are already modern German tanks in Poland - the Polish Army bought them and put them there. And the higher command levels at NATO are going to be looking at the exact type of operation they planned for all their lives, except the opponent starts 2-300 miles further back East and doesn't have a fraction of the military power it used to. Sure, it has some crack units, but the stuff that lets you fight a sustained campaign - logistics in depth and unified command - is missing. The Ossetia campaign uncovered some serious problems in Russia's military.
Quote:
A large scale conventional war could be a win/win for Russia and a quagmire for NATO.
Russia would have to pretty much convert their economy to all-out war to sustain an operation against Europe. The UK, France and Germany all have larger GDPs individually. And this would be a war right in their back yards, not some far overseas operation.
"Russia has proved time and time again that they are a military force to be reckoned with"?
You mean like when the Afghans sent the Soviets packing with their tail between their legs in a military fiasco so costly it led to the BREAKUP of the Soviet Empire?
Is THAT when they "proved they are military force to be reckoned with"?
Ken
The Russians had little to gain by staying in Afghanistan, and it had little to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union, despite what your idiot box tells you. The downfall of the Soviet Union had everything to do with a system penalized people for hard work, and began long before Afghanistan.
That being said, I would not even put that in the same category as the shameful defeat the US was dealt at the hands of the Chinese in Korea. The US set a record for running away that is hard to match.
If Putin wants to start trouble in eastern Europe, NATO will have their hands full and then some.
Russia's economy is falling fast due to a combination of the U.S.-lead sanctions and the falling price of oil.
"A funny thing happened on the way to Vladimir Putin running strategic laps around the West. Russia's economy imploded.
The latest news is that Russia's central bank raised interest rates from 10.5 to 17 percent at an emergency 1 a.m. meeting in an attempt to stop the ruble, which is down 50 percent on the year against the dollar, from falling any further. It's a desperate move to save Russia's currency that comes at the cost of sacrificing Russia's economy. So even if it "works," things are about to get a lot worse..."
Eastern Europe is for all practical purposes NATO now, and their militaries are filled with people who didn't like it one single bit when they were at Russia's beck and call. There are already modern German tanks in Poland - the Polish Army bought them and put them there. And the higher command levels at NATO are going to be looking at the exact type of operation they planned for all their lives, except the opponent starts 2-300 miles further back East and doesn't have a fraction of the military power it used to. Sure, it has some crack units, but the stuff that lets you fight a sustained campaign - logistics in depth and unified command - is missing. The Ossetia campaign uncovered some serious problems in Russia's military.
Russia would have to pretty much convert their economy to all-out war to sustain an operation against Europe. The UK, France and Germany all have larger GDPs individually. And this would be a war right in their back yards, not some far overseas operation.
There would be no sustaining because the war would not be that long. The Russians feel that the disputed territory was theirs to begin with. A war would have the support of the Russian population, In the west there would be no support for a war whatsoever. Not in Europe, and certainly not in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
