Putin: "we are much stronger than any potential aggressor"

[Smallc]

42 minutes ago, Rue said:

Wow. Talk about engaging in an elitist perspective. Try living in the  conflict zones of Africa, the Middle East,  Asia, on and on.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/yes-isis-and-trump-are-genuinely-terrifying-climate-change-is-even-scarier/

[-TSS-]

As I have had the experience of been in the Finnish army over 20 years ago as we still have the relic called conscription I can only say that if Putin decided to invade Finland I hope Finland surrendered straight away because my experience of our army was that it would be blown away in a couple of hours.

Foolishly our leaders are afraid of joining NATO only because the majority of the population is against as if they knew something.

Edited December 23, 2016 by -TSS-

[Wilber]

9 minutes ago, betsy said:

Hahahahahaha

What's so funny? Never heard of he Cuban missile crisis?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

...Putin is a dangerous megalomaniac. As dangerous as Stalin, Hitler, etc. He has the profile of a classic sociopath. If the US finds itself up against him my bet is Donald Trump has a heart attack and dies of natural  causes and they go with Pence if he does not put that twitter way.. If Trump does not stop with his twitter nonsense he will find himself dying of natural causes very soon.

 

My bet is that Canada can't/won't do even that much against Putin.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

....well let me spell it out then.....in this specific case the problem wil arise when they excite each  other and then both want to  unilaterally place their missiles in a certain location.

.Do I have to explain it further?

Yes actually, if they both want to do this wouldn't it be a due to a bi-lateral desire for each other?

Edited December 23, 2016 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Who says they don't care. What if the NATO forces in the Baltic states do fight back? What then?

 

 

It would make Desert Storm look like a drawn out conflict.....

 

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

So does the rest of the world stand by and watch while Russia moves back into all the independent states that were formerly part of the Russian then Soviet Empire. If so, who is next?

 

What was the World's response when Putin invaded Georgia and the Crimea? I would expect a similar response if he invaded the Baltic States, only with the political ramifications of sticking his thumb in the eye of NATO......When NATO doesn't, or is unable to effectively, respond, that would be the end of NATO, and a far greater victory for Putin then taking over Baltic countries most couldn't find on a map.

 

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Russia and Turkey may be bosom buddies right now but Russia has always had designs on Turkey and unrestricted access to the Mediterranean. They have gone to war eleven times in the last 300 years. In 1829 the Russians were almost at the gates of Istanbul until a British fleet moved into the Bosporous and blocked them, resulting in a treaty. Better relations between Russia and Turkey are a good thing but the Turks are kidding themselves if they think that dream isn't still alive.

 

Turkey, though one of the largest military powers in NATO (only bested by the three nuclear NATO powers) is still a paper tiger, further weakened by the recent Stalinist purges after the coup......regardless, I doubt the Russians would involve themselves in a conflict with the Turks.......and for what? Access to the Mediterranean is something the Russians already have, and is why they are so determined to keep Assad in power in Syria (basing rights at the port of Tartus)....from a Turkish perspective, the Russians and Syrians offing Kurds is a good thing......the Turks and Russians have no need for conflict.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

As I have had the experience of been in the Finnish army over 20 years ago as we still have the relic called conscription I can only say that if Putin decided to invade Finland I hope Finland surrendered straight away because my experience of our army was that it would be blown away in a couple of hours.

Foolishly our leaders are afraid of joining NATO only because the majority of the population is against as if they knew something.

 

I don't think its the least bit foolish, for Finland (like Sweden), joining NATO only puts a bigger target on the backs of the Finnish people.......because of your internal politics and wanting military, you pose no threat to Putin's Russia.....hence, no reason for Putin to attack......Finland and Sweden, need only stay out of the Russian's way in the Baltic.

[Wilber]

34 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

It would make Desert Storm look like a drawn out conflict.....

 

 

What was the World's response when Putin invaded Georgia and the Crimea? I would expect a similar response if he invaded the Baltic States, only with the political ramifications of sticking his thumb in the eye of NATO......When NATO doesn't, or is unable to effectively, respond, that would be the end of NATO, and a far greater victory for Putin then taking over Baltic countries most couldn't find on a map.

 

 

Turkey, though one of the largest military powers in NATO (only bested by the three nuclear NATO powers) is still a paper tiger, further weakened by the recent Stalinist purges after the coup......regardless, I doubt the Russians would involve themselves in a conflict with the Turks.......and for what? Access to the Mediterranean is something the Russians already have, and is why they are so determined to keep Assad in power in Syria (basing rights at the port of Tartus)....from a Turkish perspective, the Russians and Syrians offing Kurds is a good thing......the Turks and Russians have no need for conflict.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO. There were never NATO troops in Ukraine. We don't have any history of Russia invading a NATO member so you are indulging pure speculation. 

 

Russia will have access to the Mediterranean until someone slams it shut on them and that could be easily done. The only way they can guarantee that won't happen is to control the access.

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Ukraine isn't part of NATO. There were never NATO troops in Ukraine. We don't have any history of Russia invading a NATO member so you are indulging pure speculation. 

 

As are you.......do you think the United States (or the UK and France) would risk a nuclear war with Russia over Latvia or Estonia? The vast majority of NATO members don't have the domestic political capital to properly fund their own defense, let alone send to war without caveats........and you think these nations would risk nuclear war?

 

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Russia will have access to the Mediterranean until someone slams it shut on them and that could be easily done. The only way they can guarantee that won't happen is to control the access.

 

Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, had/has unfettered access to the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar........and the slammed door would just as easily be kicked open through the use of nuclear weapons........despite this, its unlikely the Russians will ever control Gibraltar........the Russian Black Sea Fleet is exactly that, a fleet intended for the Black Sea, not power projection into the Mediterranean, that its used as such is a clear demonstration that the Russians have no issues with access to where they want to go. 

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[kimmy]

I do think it's cute that the Republicans who envision Trump as their new Reagan have embraced a leader whose stance against Russian militarism is so opposite to Reagan's.

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

23 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I do think it's cute that the Republicans who envision Trump as their new Reagan have embraced a leader whose stance against Russian militarism is so opposite to Reagan's.

 -k

 

Its apples and oranges.........American interests today align far more with the Russians then they did back then, likewise the ever growing fracture with the Red Chinese.......simply put, the characters in this movie haven't changed, just the actors.......China has become the new Soviet Union, the Russians have taken on the role played by the Red Chinese (Post Nixon/ Sino-Soviet split) and the growing Pacific Rim nations have become the new Europe......and Old Europe is growing ever more irrelevant.  

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

As are you.......do you think the United States (or the UK and France) would risk a nuclear war with Russia over Latvia or Estonia? The vast majority of NATO members don't have the domestic political capital to properly fund their own defense, let alone send to war without caveats........and you think these nations would risk nuclear war?

 

 

You are doing all the assuming. You claim to know what NATO will do. I do not. 

 

It's a long way from the Baltic to the Mediteranian. Maybe Russia is o0

looking to use Turkish bases in the Med for its fleet.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You are doing all the assuming. You claim to know what NATO will do. I do not. 

Am I? This entire thread is an assumption, an assumption that Putin is an actual threat to Peace and Stability........

 

 

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It's a long way from the Baltic to the Mediteranian. Maybe Russia is o0

looking to use Turkish bases in the Med for its fleet.

 

The majority of the Russian fleet's MFUs are based with the Northern fleet, not Baltic.........and like other navies, they are capable of performing UNREPs and have basing rights in Syria.........Not sure why they would need basing rights in Turkey.

[Smallc]

Putin is a threat to peace and stability.  Georgia and Ukraine prove that.  

[Wilber]

19 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Am I? This entire thread is an assumption, an assumption that Putin is an actual threat to Peace and Stability........

 

 

 

The majority of the Russian fleet's MFUs are based with the Northern fleet, not Baltic.........and like other navies, they are capable of performing UNREPs and have basing rights in Syria.........Not sure why they would need basing rights in Turkey.

Ships can move. That is their purpose.

[Derek 2.0]

17 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Ships can move. That is their purpose.

 

And that was my point.......

 

21 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Putin is a threat to peace and stability.  Georgia and Ukraine prove that.

 

A subjective point.......many in Europe and Canada felt the Bush (and even the Reagan) administration was a threat to peace and stability. Iraq and Afghanistan prove that.

 

The West worked with Stalin against the Nazis........and Stalin was far "worse" then Putin, and even Hitler in many ways.

[Smallc]

No one would argue that Stalin was not a threat to international peace and stability.  No one should argue that for Putin...or Reagan...or Bush.

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

And that was my point.......

And my point is they are not tied to the bases they presently occupy. They can be based elsewhere

[Derek 2.0]

6 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No one would argue that Stalin was not a threat to international peace and stability.  No one should argue that for Putin...or Reagan...or Bush.

 

Again its all subjective.......the Allies were glad to have Stalin with them and not against them during the war......Reagan, Bush and Putin are/were leaders that put their countries interests first........in the coming Cold War with the Chinese, it is far better to have Putin onside then off.......and Russia (and India) itself will be far more useful then the majority of Europe, in a century where conflicts will be fought over resources, centric to the economic growth of the Pacific Rim.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Its apples and oranges.........American interests today align far more with the Russians then they did back then, likewise the ever growing fracture with the Red Chinese.......simply put, the characters in this movie haven't changed, just the actors.......China has become the new Soviet Union, the Russians have taken on the role played by the Red Chinese (Post Nixon/ Sino-Soviet split) and the growing Pacific Rim nations have become the new Europe......and Old Europe is growing ever more irrelevant.  

 

Agreed...what was old is new again.   President Obama's "Asian pivot" happened long before Trump won the election.  If Europe wants to continue growing the social welfare state at the expense of military preparedness, then Europe can dance to Putin's music. 

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...what was old is new again.   President Obama's "Asian pivot" happened long before Trump won the election.  If Europe wants to continue growing the socialist welfare state at the expense of military preparedness, then Europe can dance to Putin's music. 

 

 

Agree 100%......the Pacific pivot has been a reality since the 90s, growing proportional to the growth of China...........Europe has become "that family member", every family has one....unable and unwilling to take care of themselves, reliant upon the very nation that they collectively look down upon, and now they bring little to nothing to the table.

 

Putin does want to restore "Russian Greatness", looking after the strategic interests of his nation.......Putin, unlike most of Europe, is willing to use force to achieve his ends....if Putin and American have shared interests, it would seem only logical that they better their mutual relations and develop a partnership to achieve common goals.

 

 

[Altai]

Putin; "I am just drunk." 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I don't think its the least bit foolish, for Finland (like Sweden), joining NATO only puts a bigger target on the backs of the Finnish people.......because of your internal politics and wanting military, you pose no threat to Putin's Russia.....hence, no reason for Putin to attack......Finland and Sweden, need only stay out of the Russian's way in the Baltic.

Then why did the Russians attack them in WW2?

Edited December 24, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

Russia will have access to the Mediterranean until someone slams it shut on them and that could be easily done. The only way they can guarantee that won't happen is to control the access.

Taking Turkey is one thing. Holding it would be a nightmare.

[Wilber]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

Taking Turkey is one thing. Holding it would be a nightmare.

They don't need to take Turkey,  just control  the Bosporus.