Russia couldn't win it anyway, its Navy is in a pretty sad state really. Even when they introduce "new" ships, its mostly leftover projects of the Soviet Union begun somewhere in the late 80's or early 90's.
Are Russia preparing for WW3?
- Thread starter MoBeats
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Russia couldn't win it anyway, its Navy is in a pretty sad state really. Even when they introduce "new" ships, its mostly leftover projects of the Soviet Union begun somewhere in the late 80's or early 90's.
It's naive to think that Russia doesn't want to hang on to its small remaining presence in the middle east, not when it's rival superpower pretty much holds a hegemonic grip on most of it.
See post above.
Its actually naive and myopic to think the base is relevant in any way when you look at the broader picture of Russia's economy and its leader's need to create foreign diversions so his domestic public don't pay attention to the poor conditions back home. Having a naval base or two in a failed state has zero notional value to Russia.
I just wonder how do you come to such conclusion. What on Earth do you base your assumptions on. What exactly do you know about Russia's army. Russia intervened in Syria exactly because of it's military base. I have no idea why do you think it is not important for them. As for the stupid claim of refugees and destabilizing the region, Russia does not need that at all. It was not Russia's initiative to overthrow Assad, who kept his country under at least some sort of control.
You really wonder? Do you read the news sometimes, like, international ones?
Have you not realised Putin is funding far-right parties all over Europe which are against the EU to weaken it? Don't you think in this context, Syrian refugees and the arguments between the member states over how to deal with them is exactly something Putin wants? Don't you wonder why Russia, while supporting Assad, never really does something to really gain him an advantage, while also being at best lackluster in its efforts against ISIS?
Putin's wet dream is to keep this conflict alive as long as possible.
The naval base is just a sad excuse, it hasn't been important to Russia for the last 30 years and it isn't now.
As for the army, it's pretty easy to stay informed. There are various defence weeklys and monthlys.
That's why we know Russia isn't able to finish it's newest frigates, they were dependet on German engine technology they are no longer getting.
If that is what you are basing your opinion, basically your assumptions, then I can tell you that NATO/US are the ones who created all this havoc. Removal of Saddam left Iraq in a complete mess, or was it Russia who did that, or do you think that Iraq is now stable and is free of extremists and is not feeding ISIS? It is easy to blame Putin on everything, while completely forgetting how ISIS came into life in the first place. Now please give me any sort of evidence of Putin's funding far-right parties all over Europe. Russia has now Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, managed to keep its fleet in Crimea, and is showing how "prehistoric" it's warships are by firing missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea to hit targets in Syria.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/why-europe-is-right-to-fear-putins-useful-idiots/
First of all, educate yourself.
Second of all, stop arguing with "but but but"-arguments. For Putins interests and actions in Syria, it doesn't matter what the cause for the mess there is. He's merely using it.
I don't give a damn about the US, it's a shithole. I'm concerned about Putins Russia and its implications for Europes foreign policy and security. But it's also very easy to blame the US for everything when powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran have always played their own game down there and we had a dangerous combination of aged dictators and Islamic terrorism in the region way before the US (unnecessarily) invaded Iraq.
As for you naive assumptions about the Russian military, sending mid range missiles to hit a target should be no feat to brag about for any serious navy. It merely shows how far the Russian Navy really has fallen.
First of all, educate yourself.
Second of all, stop arguing with "but but but"-arguments. For Putins interests and actions in Syria, it doesn't matter what the cause for the mess there is. He's merely using it.
I don't give a damn about the US, it's a shithole. I'm concerned about Putins Russia and its implications for Europes foreign policy and security. But it's also very easy to blame the US for everything when powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran have always played their own game down there and we had a dangerous combination of aged dictators and Islamic terrorism in the region way before the US (unnecessarily) invaded Iraq.
As for you naive assumptions about the Russian military, sending mid range missiles to hit a target should be no feat to brag about for any serious navy. It merely shows how far the Russian Navy really has fallen.
Firstly, I do not see any evidence of Putin's involvement in funding far-right parties. Secondly, Putin is protecting his country's interests in Syria and has done so after an official request from the only legitimate government of that country. And it is not "but, but, but" , it is about going back to the beginning of the whole story, of what happened and how. If you believe that NATO have got nothing to do with what is happening in Middle East, then have a look at the ISIS thread. EU is paying exactly the price of the consequences of the game that NATO decided to start. As for Russia's military, its still very combative and competitive. The reign of the only super power and of the ultimate military block is coming to an end. Multi-polar world will be much more safe.
Russia is funding/supporting various far right groups in Europe, but the amount of support is usually exaggerated. Countries that percieve themselves as hegemons seem to think that they have to maintain influence in their sphere. Do I agree with that? No. Does this actually benefit Russian people? No. They still do it, because they cling on to archaic values. It sucks for smaller countries that suffer because of the irresponsible behavior of their bigger neighbors. Still, if someone thinks that this is wrong (I do), you shouldn’t be too selective about your outrage or you look rather silly. Russia is hardly the only country who does that. China does it, Europea does it and the USA is doing it globally.
The only sphere, where the natural hegemon isn’t engaging in similar behavior is South America with Brazil since the 80s. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from two from their foreign policy: You don’t need to bully the countries around you.
Putin is a pretty bad leader for his citizens and some of the countries around Russia are rightfully worried about their foreign policy. All justifiable criticism aside, that is no reason to demonize them. Even my grandparents, who were living all their life in West-Berlin and suffered due to Russian policy, are more objective than various posters in this forum. Fcbforever clearly drunk too much of the “Putin is the mother of all evils” cool-aid and Raoul is just on his typical US power-trip.
So, for example, 9.4 millions for Le Pen is nothing? What have you expected, Putin showing up with a giant cheque, taking some photographs?
These Parties came up just at the right time and he's going to use them. RT Germany's sole purpose is to advocate Russia's Point of view in general and of PEGIDA and the AfD in particular. That's like Germany having a Russian language television channel in Russia solely supporting the opposition.And tbh, I don't think NATO have got anything to do with what is happening down here. You seem to have serious problems understanding what NATO is. It's not a gouvernmental body forming its own foreign policy and it never will be. While powers like France, GB and the US are part of it, that doesn't mean the alliance is involved in any way. I'm also very interested in what "game" these powers started because in regards to the Arab spring, the main criticism towards the west and especially the USA has been that they haven't done enough, really. Obama himself admitted that his non-consequential "red line" in Syria was probably the biggest mistake of his presidency. And he's right.
As for Russia's military and a multipolar world, we can safely assume that Russia will never be among the worlds superpowers again. China? Maybe, probably likely. But even then, the rumours of the death of US military supremacy have been greatly exaggerated. That might take another 30 years.
I would wager Killary and her hawks to start WW3 before Putin ever does.
Edit: Oh and the post quoted above, wow, just wow. Shit like that obviously still sticks back in the US, but the rest of the world are starting to wise up.
Edit: Oh and the post quoted above, wow, just wow. Shit like that obviously still sticks back in the US, but the rest of the world are starting to wise up.
Amazing isn't itpot, kettle, etc.
Explain
Vietnam war
Mujaheedin
Saddam vs Iran
South America
never-existing WMD's
Support of the "democratic rebels" in Syria
Whatever Israel demands
and the list goes on and on. You meddle in everyones affair and are still shocked when people point it out.
What is fun is that you've mostly escaped from it unscathered. But lately the Syria conflict seems like the last drop, and I hear people in Norway (who mostly are wildly pro US due to our proximity to Russia) start to question your nation and your policies. The ridiculous reality show of an election you have ongoing with two sociopaths as candidates doesn't help either.
I still don't get it. We're talking about the present, or at a minimum recent history, as in the past few years during the Obama administration, which isn't remotely analogous to Putin's situation in Russia.
Explain
Every nation does this to an extent. Are you suggesting that the US doesn't employ the strategy of foreign distractions, too?
Should point out that the single biggest source of materials for Iraq's army during the Iran/Iraq War was the Soviet Union. Just pointing this out because Saddam was very good at playing both of the then Super Powers off each other and getting much support from both. He also owed a big debt to the USSR (as well as Kuwait and others) by the end of the war.
I suppose one could fish out random things from the distant past by administrations who have nothing to do with the present. Nixon is the last one I can think of that could credibly be talked about as remotely similar to what Putin is doing in Russia. To be clear, we're talking about an authoritarian dictator who stays in power by coercion, so any comparisons to the US are light years apart from what Vlad is doing in Russia. All of his foreign policy actions are a device to distract his public from recognizing his corrupt governance, inability to diversify away from oil, his corrupt patronage network of elites, etc. There simply is no modern day situation anywhere in the western world that is remotely analogous.
Well, the last example is just a couple of days old, when it was “leaked” that the USA is going to engage in cyber-attacks against Russia. The problem is, that some of our American posters bought into this nonsense. Hook, line, sinker. Propaganda against foreign “enemies” (Iran, Russia, Syria or China) always creates support among the partisan base.
So, for example, 9.4 millions for Le Pen is nothing? What have you expected, Putin showing up with a giant cheque, taking some photographs?
And tbh, I don't think NATO have got anything to do with what is happening down here. You seem to have serious problems understanding what NATO is. It's not a gouvernmental body forming its own foreign policy and it never will be. While powers like France, GB and the US are part of it, that doesn't mean the alliance is involved in any way. I'm also very interested in what "game" these powers started because in regards to the Arab spring, the main criticism towards the west and especially the USA has been that they haven't done enough, really. Obama himself admitted that his non-consequential "red line" in Syria was probably the biggest mistake of his presidency. And he's right.
As for Russia's military and a multipolar world, we can safely assume that Russia will never be among the worlds superpowers again. China? Maybe, probably likely. But even then, the rumours of the death of US military supremacy have been greatly exaggerated. That might take another 30 years.
Going in circles here. So far right parties in EU are funded by Putin, is an easy claim to throw around. It is not that the conditions within EU countries that lead to these parties' flourishing, it is Putin's fault, right? As for becoming super power, well Russia is showing that it will be counted and Syria is a prime example of that. It will continue to strengthen it's positions on its west border, it will continue to supply natural gas to EU, so geopolitically, Russia is not doing badly lately, much better than during Yeltsin's times. As for ISIS, it blossomed after there was no centralized government in Iraq. The vaccum that was created after Saddam was killed. Have you ever heard of ISIS during Saddam's reign? How many refugees did you have in Europe back then? And if you believe that NATO should be considered as a neutral or a non military block by Russia, then you are pretty naive. If you think that withdrawal from ABM treaty should go unnoticed by Russia, it is also naive. So far, I do not see any signle thing that the EU benefited from aftet the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. If anything, the situation got worse. Assad is no angel, neither was Saddam, but the situation has gotten much much worse now in the Middle East. I would be all for removing the dictators all over the world if it brought stability and prosperity to those countries, but it is impossible in reality. Europe will suffer from the mess in the Middle East, the far right parties will call for the heads of the members of governments because of the inflow of refugees. Finally, do not like RT do not watch it. BBC have their Russian service, so do DW. I watch BBC, CNN, RT, Al Jazeera and other channels and I am happy to have several sources of news,with people having their own points of view on various topics. It is up to me to form an opinion and diversity of sources certainly helps.
How is this in any way relevant to anything in this thread ?
Step 1: gather domestic support by spreading questionable narratives about foreign “enemies”. Build up a boogeyman
Step2: Act like a tough guy
Step3: Profit.
Step2: Act like a tough guy
Step3: Profit.
Well, to put it this way, either Clinton or Trump will be your next el'presidente, so somehow I suspect that we will see worse in the next 4 years.
Clinton will start it all off by her rocket shield around China, and probably a no-fly zone over Syria just for good measure. Can't risk those pesky elected government forces winning against the democratic rebels.
There's no equivalency between them. She has more governance experience than just about any candidate in recent history, whereas he he has absolutely none. She will basically be a more masculine version of Obama, which will be absolutely fantastic IMO.
If a more masculine version of Obama means even further down the pockets of Wall Street and even more prone to accept anything the hawks tell her to do and adopt an even more aggressive foreign policy then you are probably right tbf.
Don't get me wrong, she is a purebred politician, one of the purest out there. But a good president? Don't make me laugh. You nearly had a good one in Obama, and you could have had your best one since Lincoln in Bernie Sanders, and look what you are left with.
We're talking foreign policy here. The reality of being atop the global pecking order is you have to lead with a forward leading foreign policy. If you don't, the next group of states a level below (Russia, China etc) will simply assume the role you've punted away.
I never said he founded these parties, he's funding and using them since they are available.
Also, you have again failed to understand some basic points. Of course Russia will remain a regional power, it won't just ever be able to match The US, China or even the EU.
And I neither consider the NATO neutral nor non-military, it's just not a block. It's an alliance of countries with very different interests and foreign policies. It can't act on its own. It also couldn't retreat from the ABM treaty because it never signed it in the first place, it was an agreement between Russa and the US.
Also, my point in case is that while the US messed up Iraq, it had nothing to do with Syria and might have just fastened a development we would have seen anyway. Unless you believe Saddam, Ghaddafi and Mubarak were immortal. Also, while this is problematic it's completely irrelevant when it comes to the fact that Purin is using these conflicts to destabilize the west for his own gain. We can't undo what has happened, but we can react to new threads. As of now, Putin is acting hostile and should be dealt with accordingly, which means keeping the sanctions up and trying to keep him out from future emerging conflicts by finding viable solutions ourselves.
And please don't try to compare radio station to a multi-million dollar news network which more than once tried to interfere with our domestic politics, even by actively spreading lies to cause an uproar in the German-Russian community. That reall showed how dangerous RT is.
You're an American missionary, preaching with the zeal of the converted.
Russia will do/are doing whatever they want and no one will do anything about it. Putin is crazy enough to start a world war, but most of the other countries will have to back down because of the consequences. If there is a war, humanity may not survive what is to come.
No he isn't, calm down.
Look at that response. Spoken like a true disciple. Can I fact check my hypothesis on hillaryclinton.com?
Yeah, stupid Russians. How gullible they are, focusing on foreign adventures in the middle east while their almost totalitarian government pisses all over their civil rights.
The Patriot Act doesn't fit here at all. No sir.
He isn't - but he will retaliate without too much provocation. Saying that I do think he'd much prefer a grovelling apology though.
Okie dokie.
You think he's nutty enough to start a nuclear war ? I seriously doubt he would.
He has clearly shown that he is willing to go to war by his actions in Ukraine and Syria. The reason the world is not at war is because the "allied" nations will continue to back down.
Raoul. Stop taking the Clinton talking points as news.
We don't have to get into a conflict with Russia. A no fly zone is the surest way to do this. An idiot like Hillary may well do this to hide the fact she has no real intention/guts to fight for the public option or free college tuition.
The first Real test will be her SC appointee. She being a Republican in all but name, I would expect us to get screwed.
We don't have to get into a conflict with Russia. A no fly zone is the surest way to do this. An idiot like Hillary may well do this to hide the fact she has no real intention/guts to fight for the public option or free college tuition.
The first Real test will be her SC appointee. She being a Republican in all but name, I would expect us to get screwed.
What's up bro!