Russian army under equipped?

[AttorneyAtWar]

6 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious @Battlefront.com Steve why you think the break up of the US is inevitable?  It has very strong geographic, demographic, economic, political,  cultural and military reasons for staying together.

I think the election currently happening is a pretty good argument for it!

I don't think we'll be splitting up, but the two halves of the political divide live in very different worlds and if you really want to go in depth look at what each major political party believes in comparison to the other. Their are a lot of interesting polls that really show you what people think within a margin of error of course.

 

PS: This website or the Battlefront community needs a discord or chat room so we can yell at each other faster and more efficiently.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Raptorx7

[IICptMillerII]

26 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I'm sick of repeating the same things over and over now. If you do not see any other illegal things other than the Crimean referendum then that's that arguing with you.

Jesus Christ... Come save me! I voted for Putin but he's illegitimate because he won! 

Read my Estonia example where Russia intervening there is not justified by any thing, and if you'd remember there was a very intense hype up of Russia threating the Baltics. Again exaggerations, not more different than some things the Russian government says. Russia sold Alaska, there's no Russians there, the US is a completely legitimate government, nothing there for any threat to Russian people to take place. I don't get why you are bringing those totally irrelevent claims up, it has nothing to do with the way Russia reacted in Ukraine, and for what reasons. I'm sure in Crimea quite a few Russian people have been mugged so by your standards Russia should have annexed way before lol... Irony

Okay sure.

The US definitely cares but not in the way I was talking about. 

Harsh words, sanctions on behalf of the EU and US doesn't count as the world, but it is a considerably large population sure lol. 

So be it, if Russians must endure sanctions for another decade we'll take it.

kk fam, glhf

[Sublime]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Fine thanks friend how about you? Looking for someone to shoot a CMBS match with on the weekend possibly if you're interested  

 

Ive really retreated from cm in general but ill accept. Where in russia do you live? Im in boston. Pm me id like to talk abt regular life family and stuff i want to hear about russia and your life and in turn ill tell you about mine. The truth no glorification.

And yes my oppos i know who you are and expect turns. A game with vlad is too good to resist. Oh and vlad obviously (?)you.d prefer Russia. I always play as Russia though. Should we play native countries (mwahaahahaha) or you want me to be more fair and take realistic (to my mind) ukr equip and you in turn fight me with t72s and not what would be considered elite units but what a real general terms red army unit with t72s fighting ukraine on a part of a front that includes elite units and NATO. Keep that in mind. Its the only way to balance the nerfing of certain Ukr assets and no APS.  If you could have Drozhd Id let you but I have yet to see widespread evidence of Russian APS in use but I could be totall wrong. I DO know it shouldnt be an issue with 72s anyway.  You can have whatever you want if I get US and Ill even not buy APS just cuz I think it sucks and takes a lot of the "fun" out of modern war.

Kino i think Steve thinks the US will collapse eventually because its become an empire and all empires fall all nations morph and eventually fracture. Sometimes they join a bigger collective or sometimes they disappear but its hard to name any state thats survived 2k yrs at all and only the Papacy comes to mind and thats very iffy. Then we could maybe say for length of time idk the current Japanese or British dynasty though theyre figureheads.

Anyone got somethin good and obvious Im missing?

[VladimirTarasov]

21 minutes ago, Sublime said:

And yes my oppos i know who you are and expect turns. A game with vlad is too good to resist. Oh and vlad obviously (?)you.d prefer Russia. I always play as Russia though. Should we play native countries (mwahaahahaha) or you want me to be more fair and take realistic (to my mind) ukr equip and you in turn fight me with t72s and not what would be considered elite units but what a real general terms red army unit with t72s fighting ukraine on a part of a front that includes elite units and NATO. Keep that in mind. Its the only way to balance the nerfing of certain Ukr assets and no APS.  If you could have Drozhd Id let you but I have yet to see widespread evidence of Russian APS in use but I could be totall wrong. I DO know it shouldnt be an issue with 72s anyway.  You can have whatever you want if I get US and Ill even not buy APS just cuz I think it sucks and takes a lot of the "fun" out of modern war.

It's up to you, you can play as the US if you'd like. I would like to keep it a realistic battle, no APS and that's about it. If you want to play as Ukraine sure thing. I'd rather play as redfor because I'm a dirty commie, but it wouldn't matter if I was Blufor either. 

23 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Ive really retreated from cm in general but ill accept. Where in russia do you live? Im in boston. Pm me id like to talk abt regular life family and stuff i want to hear about russia and your life and in turn ill tell you about mine. The truth no glorification.

Okay I'll PM you now. 

[Kinophile]

Certainly all things change. Given enough time....even the sun will die :-)

I can see the US  heading for a political crisis, between left/right,  rich/poor. The current crop of leaders are so poor some kind of screw up is inevitable. But underneath the incessant, restless greed at the top/bottom is a very robust and flexible society that is generally drifting towards a more inclusive and positive form. 

Still no Canada though :-)

Anyways, I think anything that can break the US can break the world. Until then,  Rock on my friends. 

[TheForwardObserver]

Every election is awful and divisive but this one has been particularly nasty.  Really hope that whoever wins focuses their firepower on healing some rifts.

[Sublime]

amen to that man. The nastiness thats grown imo since the early 90s between dems and the gop has gotten so nasty i fear for our nation sometimes honestly and really hope everyone comes to their senses. Both sides need to acknowledge we.re ALL Americans and need to work together and stop this senseless infighting to this degree. ( naturally my all americans isnt about the board )

Edited September 16, 2016 by Sublime

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, cool breeze said:

Right, but Russia only wants to confront us because we are everywhere in the world because we consider it all to be our sphere of influence.

Not true.  Germany, the UK, France, etc. do not feel the need to fly bombers near us or undermine our elections, do they?  Yet they also have feelings that the US is in too many places, too strongly, with too little room for them to maneuver.

But that's also not why you're wrong.  Authoritarian regimes, almost universally, require an outside threat to use as a means of keeping their people afraid.  It's a time honored strategy which all nations use to some extent, but authoritarian regimes put extremely heavy emphasis on it.  Almost as a rule totally out of proportion to whatever real threat there might be.  Also, the active measures the regime takes to counter this alleged foreign threat often have absolutely nothing to do with said threat.  Such as cracking down on political dissent.  You are aware that Russia has branded practically every foreign organization operating in Russia as a "foreign agent", yes?

Quote

If we were minding our own business we'd be low on the priorities list.

Unlikely because that has very little to do with what is going on with Russia.

Quote

I was aware of the post cold war change in out military posture, but that seems more like just turning our nations proverbial  cross-hair towards the Middle East and Asia while containing their currently preoccupied with its getting their **** together old enemy.  If we were to actually try to end the cold war we'd have to actually reduce our nuclear arsenal and scale back the CIA.    And maybe stop acting like we run the world.

Er... might a well get rid of the military and all dance around with flowers in our hair while we're at it The truth is the world is a very nasty place.  Whenever the US withdraws it's military and influence from a region things get WORSE, not better.  Then said regions, and countries with interests in the area, blame the US for abandoning the place.

The fact of the matter is that power vacuums will be filled by someone.  While I absolutely think the US is borderline incompetent in how it fills that void, do you REALLY think that an autocratic regime would do better?  Do you really think that if the US withdrew all of its efforts to educate and democratize there would be a freer and less brutal world order?  Based on historical precedence and a reasonable read of political science it would likely be vastly worse in most cases most of the time.

The fact is the world needs a policeman very badly.  The US is the closest the world has ever had and its had it since the early 20th Century.  I don't see any other nations raising their hands to take over the position and I certainly don't see the world being mature enough to live without one.  In fact, I saw most of Europe look the other way as genocide was happening in the Baltics during the 1990s.  I watched mortar shells hit places I had visited only a few months before the outbreak of war, and I can tell you I was none to happy that the US chose that time to let someone else handle it.

5 hours ago, shift8 said:

To be clear here, I am on your side of this argument as of the subject of the thread. My point here had nothing to do with Crimea or Ukraine in so much as their separation of Russia. My point is that Crimea itself cannot re-decide to leave the Ukraine because it now thinks its Russian ( and I am not even saying thats the case). Russian cannot point at Crimea and go "oh look they want to be Russian now" and then invade to please those people. 

Yup, understood.  Plus, Russia's murderous wars against Chechnya (among others) clearly indicates that Russia has absolutely no interest in what people want except when it suits their agenda.  "The people of Chechnya spoke, we heard their voice, and then we ran them over with tanks" doesn't really give the Russian state much credibility when it comes to questions of self determination.

5 hours ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious @Battlefront.com Steve why you think the break up of the US is inevitable?  It has very strong geographic, demographic, economic, political,  cultural and military reasons for staying together.

See this...

5 hours ago, cool breeze said:

Time destroys all things

Yup.  It could take another two hundred years or it could happen tomorrow.  It all depends on factors which can not be predicted.  It's kinda like the Twin Towers.  One expected them to always be there, but many knew that at some point they would likely be demolished for one or more reasons.  Nobody expected them to come down without any warning one sunny September day.

One of the unbroken rules of Human history is empires always fall.  The United States is an empire by traditional historical definitions.  Although it is the most benign empire in history (in relative terms), despite being the most powerful (in absolute terms), it is unlikely going to cheat "death".  And I hope for all of our sakes that none of us are around when that happens.  I pity the generations that won't be as lucky.

Steve

[Jotte]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

...

The fact is the world needs a policeman very badly.  The US is the closest the world has had since the early 20th Century.  I don't see any others raising their hands to take over the position.  In fact, I saw most of Europe look the other way as genocide was happening in the Baltics during the 1990s.  I watched mortar shells hit places I had visited only a few months before the outbreak of war, and I can tell you I was none to happy that the US chose that time to let someone else handle it.

...

Steve

That would be the Balkans, time to get some rest Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Damn, my head has been in this thread for too long   Yes, BALKANS.  Sleep would be be a good thing for sure.  I think I might try some!

Steve

[Sublime]

Cool breeze

Regarding ending the cold war and "actually reducing our nukes"

ACTUALLY we.ve tried to get the Russians to lower the amount quite a bit. They insist on keeping nukes and that all of us gttn rid of ours would destroy  MAD  and thus plunge the world into anarchy. Same defense they use for the missile shield.

And ACTUALLY in the 90s we were PAYING the Russians to guard their own nukes! And more than 10 still are missing!

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Cool breeze

Regarding ending the cold war and "actually reducing our nukes"

ACTUALLY we.ve tried to get the Russians to lower the amount quite a bit. They insist on keeping nukes and that all of us gttn rid of ours would destroy  MAD  and thus plunge the world into anarchy. Same defense they use for the missile shield.

And ACTUALLY in the 90s we were PAYING the Russians to guard their own nukes! And more than 10 still are missing!

By this point,  unless very very properly maintained,  those missing 10 will have by lost about 50% effectiveness and it will be very difficult to fully ignite a proper chain reaction. 

However a "slow" reaction, ie a dirty bomb,  is still possible  (as it always is with radioactive material,  just to varying efficiency). 

I've read several studies on the impacts of even a "limited" exchange,  eg India/Pakistan,  Iran/Israel/Saudi Arabia*,  and even just 5-10 nuke strikes would cause a severe global weather effect. Naturally,  it's the rural poor in the mid east/africa/asia/Stan's who would suffer the most from the "global autumn".... 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by kinophile

[hattori]

I personally don't see the U.S. collapsing at all, unless we are hit with something globally that takes all of us down.  What I do see is a setting of the sun on the American empire down the road though.  There are a few long term economic trends working against them (and I do believe the main factor is any country's soft and hard power is their economic strength) -- namely population.  America has around 4% of the world's population, China and India have 20% each, and both countries are catching up economically. 

I do see the tensions in the U.S., but I am not too worried.  You guys have had some really rough patches in your past -- I think the 60s and 70s might have been worse for you, but I have faith you'll pull through this.  Sometimes a little sand in the system is needed to make the pearl, I'm sure you guys will eventually settle your differences.  I personally think part of the problem is you had a scary common enemy (Russia) for so long that somewhat united your right and left wings that you didn't have to deal with it as much until now.

I also think looking at Ukraine and Russia without taking into account this is really just an extension of the cold war is a little silly.  The west thought Russia was finished in the 90s.  We figured we could start acting unilaterally, and honestly, we started to completely ignore Russia whereas before we always had to take into account what they were going to do.  We wanted to ensure western dominance (hey, I'm not against this, it is in my best interests, and I'm biased enough I think the western way is pretty good) so we pushed NATO east towards Russia, we completely tore up nuclear treaties and started building missile defense systems near their border.   There were very good reasons the treaties said we couldn't build those systems before -- MAD crazily ensured some peace as Russia knew whatever happened, the U.S. could never completely stomp all over Russian interests.  Don't underestimate how many of America's ... non-friends worry about an American invasion -- they have done it repeatedly in the past to countries, it's a big reason Iran and North Korea want a nuke so badly.  Now we were completely changing the equation, turning this into a clear U.S. global nuclear domination.  I really don't think Americans appreciate what this turn must have felt like to the Russians.  We poked the bear, and it was going to get a reaction.  Russia is actively working to protect it's interests and project it's power again, since to them, we're going to disregard what they want anyways whenever they try to play nice.

Long story short, we can argue the moral rights and wrongs until we're blue in the face, but it's irrelevant.  The reasons provided by the Russian government for their actions in the Ukraine and the reasons provided by the U.S. for Iraq are done purely to increase domestic support and to give the veneer of just enough of a legitimate reason to prevent triggering a bigger war.  It is all a part of the geo political game by the big powers to jockey for position -- and understandably so, I personally want the west to come out on top over Russia and China in the future, I prefer our societal structure.  

I do apologize for my aggressiveness.  Unfortunately to me, at times it comes across that Vlad is being bullied.  I used to work with a coder who was ex Russian airborne, and while he immigrated to Canada, he was clearly a Russian patriot.  As irritating as he was, and the arguments we got into, he did make me for the first time see things from a non western perspective.  To us, it seems incredulous and ridiculous at times, but that is our personal point of view, and we all always see things through the lens of our self best interest.   

As for the U.S. being the world's policeman ... hmmm.  The U.S. gets involved where it is in their interest to be involved.  They "bring democracy" to countries where a change in government suits their interest (I believe for democracies to work, they have to be won the hard way, by the locals, they have to want it badly across the board -- "giving" democracy doesn't seem to work too well).  They tend to ignore countries -- looking at you African nations -- where there is nothing to gain for them.  I still think the reason we are so interested in the Ukraine is because we all know if we can totally shear them off from Russian influence, a western aligned Ukraine is a constant knife to Russia's throat.

Okay, I honestly could talk forever about a lot of these topics, I have to cut things off somewhere.

 

[Kinophile]

To be clear and accurate,  NATO didnt push east -  east came to them. Estonia,  Latvia,  Poland etc. applied independently, sometimes together,  but all without any push from NATO. 

The inherent  implication that NATO crept east as part of some dastardly opportunistic plan silently roll up to Russia's borders is a fundamental inaccuracy, constantly propagated by the Russian government. 

The reality is that the moment the Warsaw Pact countries were free they began talking talking to NATO. And I mean within months of the Wall coming down.

Now, the SU  technically still existed at the time, so it was theoretically possible that it could attempt to militarily roll back in,  giving joining NATO that extra urgency. Even so,  if they wanted to leave by now they could have,  any time,  no referendum needed. Yet they haven't,  which suggests that they are very happy within NATO. 

The word encroachment also implies that Russia has some kind of Right of First Interference or something, but any cultural, moral, economic or political justifications for that went out the window with the Politburo. Russia doesn't see that,  but their former slave states do,  and have good long memories. ****ing with the Ukraine in the Donbass rings far too many old alarm bells in the former WP countries. 

Edited September 16, 2016 by kinophile

[hattori]

I never said Russia had any right, that is irrelevant.  What does matter is how Russia would perceive it and react to it.  

We knew exactly what we were doing to Russian when we accepted former Eastern bloc countries into a military alliance geared towards opposing Russia so quickly.

 

[Wicky]

@hattori  - I think you'll find the various nations inc Poland desperately want missile defence and upgraded air defence systems to keep the Russians at bay without much prompting from the US...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-defence-tenders-idUSKCN0VK1PG

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/if-necessary-alone-the-shield-of-poland-022785/

They're been steamrollered before and experienced acting as buffer states and don't relish that occuring again now that they have achieved independence.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Wicky

[hattori]

I have no doubt Poland wanted it, Poland is very anti Russia, with good reason.  Again, that is irrelevant.  Poland is a minor player, the real power brokers are the U.S. and Russia, and the U.S. did not care any longer what Russia might think or how they might react.  If you remember, the U.S. did not take too kindly to Russia planting missiles in Cuba, even though Cuba wanted them there.

It's not nice, it's not fair, it's not right, but it is the world as it is.  Russia 100% sees Ukraine as in their sphere of influence, and a key strategic piece of real estate.  To think they were going to take this lying down is ridiculous.  I do think their choice of action was their own doom though, long term it is impossible to keep people in your country that don't want to be there.  We have enough trouble in Canada keeping Quebec happy enough to stay, I HOPE we have finally put that one to rest.

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, hattori said:

I never said Russia had any right, that is irrelevant.  What does matter is how Russia would perceive it and react to it.  

No, they are both relevant.  If someone important views his wife as a punching bag he is legally and morally entitled to beat on whenever he feels like, what does one do when the woman comes looking for protection?  "Oh sorry miss, you're just going to have to learn to live with it because your husband might make things uncomfortable for us".

BS.

Russia has a proven track record of abusing its neighbors in every way.  They escaped 45 years of illegitimate, highly destructive and abusive rule by Russia when the Soviet Union broke up.  At least for the short term.  The Baltic States and Poland, in particular, had already seen this sort of opportunity for independence squashed when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to carve them up.  It would be utterly insane for them to NOT think that Russia was just going to bide its time and come at them again as soon as it was able to.  Given that, it would have been immoral, not to mention counter productive long term, for the West to sit there and say "sorry chums, but you've just got to take care of yourself because we don't want to take any personal risk".

I know Russia doesn't view it this way.  They also view an outright war of aggression and annexation of territory differently than the West.  They have an entirely different view of what Human Rights are (i.e. they aren't sacrosanct).  They don't believe in democratic values at all.  They believe that nuclear warfare is something that should not be taken off the table.  Obviously all of these perspectives have to be taken into consideration by the West, just as a judge should take into consideration that a wife beater thinks it's his God given right to do whatever he wants to his wife.  The victim has to be thrown under the bus because that's the easier thing to do.

Quote

We knew exactly what we were doing to Russian when we accepted former Eastern bloc countries into a military alliance geared towards opposing Russia so quickly.

Yes, of course the West knew what it was doing.  We were aiding countries struggling to be better stewards of their people, which included protecting them from the risk of yet more subjugation from Russia.  The problem isn't that the West embraced the former victims of Russia's long standing pattern of rape and pillage, but rather that Russia remained (and remains) unrepentant.  It denies it's past and continues along the same path that it was on when the Soviet Union broke up.  It had the same opportunities to become a fair and productive state, but in the end it showed that it is not interested in reform.  Which shows that the countries along its border were correct to ask for the protection and help of the West *and* the West was right to grant it to them.

BTW, in case nobody's figured it out... I'm not a big fan of "blame the victim" line of thinking.   The West should not be blamed for Russia's refusal to change its way of conducting itself.  That is all on Russia's shoulders.

Steve

[hattori]

Wow, you are going way off here.  Not putting a missile defense system in Russia and not inviting Poland into NATO are in no way whatsoever letting a husband beat a wife and standing idly by.  Come on.  Even you should see the ridiculousness of that statement.

You also keep thinking I'm defending Russia's actions.  I'm not. What I am trying to provide is there are reasons why Russia is acting the way it is.  Russia isn't some evil entity that is just messing with Ukraine for the fun of it.  They have their own concerns and priorities, and as much as we don't like it, are perfectly valid for them.  It seems most people here completely dismiss them, if they acknowledge them at all.

Since to me this is a Russia-U.S. geo political issue (do you think the average Indian or Chinese citizen really cares what happens to Ukraine?  Is this even on the radar in Africa?), if we are going to criticize Russia (which is what this thread has turned into), criticizing the other half of the equation is totally fair game, whether you like it or not.

And come on!  Are you really naive enough to believe we invited those countries into NATO and put up the missile shields in those locations because of the goodness of our hearts, that we were only concerned that those people could vote?  You're as bad as Vlad for buying into government propoganda lol.

[Kinophile]

It's not government propaganda if it is very clearly and publicly the desire of the people. 

This has been shown through innumerable articles,  interviews and polls of the former WP countries, initially  then and continuously over the last 20 years. 

No propaganda needed. 

Re why NATO accepted the applicants,  yes naturally it was viewed as an opportunity to future proof against Russian aggression. Considering the West had just won a 50 year cold war against an extremely dangerous enemy,  who's primary asset was an alliance of subjugated Nations, then letting those former Nations into NATO was the correct way to prevent a recurrence of Russian pressure on them. And they desired that also. Considering the purpose of resisting the SU was to maintain and expand basic rights and freedoms in the West,  then I'd argue that yes,  it was out if the goodness of our hearts. It was the morally right thing to do. Absolutely, realpolitik played it's part,  but it was backed up by a solid moral imperative - break Russia's ability to ever again conquer and enslave Eastern Europe. 

Joining NATO is pretty much the only way those Nations could resist Russia. And if a Russia Government has a problem with their membership, which it does, it is because it is the unrepentant bully who spent 50 years beating Eastern Europe down and now finds its victims playing happily in another playground,  one with a seriously capable guard on duty. Tough ****. 

I doubt anyone in NATO was unaware that Russia might start pushing back at some point,  but it's been clear since and now that that future tension and pressure could be staved off due to NATO's expanded strength. Russia hasn't a realistic chance against NATO,  militarily. And it's very attempts to restart it's pressure games (a la Donbass) only serve to further solidify NATO's political cohesiveness. The game has ended but Russia keeps trying to play. 

NATO and the West can understand why Russia wants back in,  but it's lost any moral right to do so. Few in the East Europe countries see a distinction between Russian v Soviet aggression.

They just see Russia, and remember. Hard. 

So my attitude to Russian annoyance at the West being so close, capable and locked in with Eastern Europe is - TOUGH.

So what if they try to mess with things? What, really, can they do?Eastern Europe will never turn back to Russia.  

Edited September 16, 2016 by kinophile

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, hattori said:

Wow, you are going way off here.  Not putting a missile defense system in Russia and not inviting Poland into NATO are in no way whatsoever letting a husband beat a wife and standing idly by.  Come on.  Even you should see the ridiculousness of that statement.

Well Steve was comparing standing by while someone beats their wife to a refusal to allow the former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO and thus letting them remain vulnerable to what is actually happening to the Ukraine right now.  Yeah, it is a harsh way to put it but frankly not as harsh as what the Russian Government is actually doing in Ukraine right now.

 

1 hour ago, hattori said:

You also keep thinking I'm defending Russia's actions.  I'm not. What I am trying to provide is there are reasons why Russia is acting the way it is.  Russia isn't some evil entity that is just messing with Ukraine for the fun of it.  They have their own concerns and priorities, and as much as we don't like it, are perfectly valid for them.  It seems most people here completely dismiss them, if they acknowledge them at all.

Yikes.  You really think that?  You would be OK if the US replaced our Canada government / invaded because we didn't cooperate as the expected on one issue or another?  I think the main point is just because country X can get away with action Y because that matches their concerns and priorities does not make it OK.

 

1 hour ago, hattori said:

Since to me this is a Russia-U.S. geo political issue (do you think the average Indian or Chinese citizen really cares what happens to Ukraine?  Is this even on the radar in Africa?),

But they should be concerned though shouldn't they. 

 

1 hour ago, hattori said:

if we are going to criticize Russia (which is what this thread has turned into), criticizing the other half of the equation is totally fair game, whether you like it or not.

There are plenty of questionable activities going on around the world and yeah those should be called out.  There are plenty of news papers, internet sites your own blog where you can criticize whomever you think deserves it.  The problem is this forum is supposed to be about a game that is based in Ukraine with a back story that connects to current events.  Steve has drawn a line to say that this discussion can go on as long as it connects to that game.  Since he owns this forum he gets to set the rules.  Go start your own forum and have at it. 

 

1 hour ago, hattori said:

And come on!  Are you really naive enough to believe we invited those countries into NATO and put up the missile shields in those locations because of the goodness of our hearts, that we were only concerned that those people could vote?  You're as bad as Vlad for buying into government propoganda lol.

LOL OK sure you can be as cynical as you like about corporate behaviour, the desire for access to markets, the desire for access to resources but from a citizen's point of view it *is* because we are concerned about the right to vote and have self determination.  Those of us that have that right know that it is the basis of prosperity and freedom.  If other people want to join in on that way of life the that sounds good to me.  If they want help to get there or protect the changes they have chosen to make - that sound good to me too.  You can also be as cynical as you like about government propaganda and make a claim that all governments do it but come on really you are going to compare the system in the west the constantly challenges the government line with the system in Russia where the press *is* the government line?

I appreciate Vlad's presentation of the whys and reasons behind the Russian Government actions.  I really do.  I had an inkling of what the motivation was but it is good to have an explanation.  And I appreciate his explanation and the history behind it.  Just because I appreciate that does not mean I agree or even think it is right.
 

[A Canadian Cat]

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

They just see Russia, and remember. Hard. 

So my attitude to Russian annoyance at the West being so close, capable and locked in with Eastern Europe is - TOUGH.

Yep

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

So what if they try to mess with things? What, really, can they do?Eastern Europe will never turn back to Russia.  

That I disagree with.  Well OK they would never "turn back" in the under their control sense but they could live peaceful and prosperously and have good bilateral relationships.  Russia absolutely can have influence in this world including Eastern Europe.  It will take time - probably close to 50 more years but it will have to start with a massive change in attitude including contrition of past actions, following the rule of international law, trading in good faith, freedom for its own people and so on and so forth, being cooperative with neighbours on issues that matter to both.  It would be great if the Russian people demanded that of their government.  Some day I hope they do.

[hattori]

7 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yikes.  You really think that?  You would be OK if the US replaced our Canada government / invaded because we didn't cooperate as the expected on one issue or another?  I think the main point is just because country X can get away with action Y because that matches their concerns and priorities does not make it OK.

I understand that you disagree with what I say, and that you are riled up, but you do need to clearly read what I write.  At no point am I ever saying Russia's actions are okay.  In my opinion, they aren't.  What I am saying is Russia isn't doing this out of the blue, they have reasons why they are acting why they are acting.  To them, they feel they are justified.  Vlad is Russian.  He feels justified with his country's actions.  If he has his opinion, so be it.  I don't have to like it, but if I'm going to deal with it, I better sure know why the Russians are acting the way they are, and what their reasoning might be.

 I certainly don't approve of ISIS, but I can understand why some of them believe they are fulfilling prophesy and acting the way they are acting.  How else do you combat something if you don't understand it?

16 minutes ago, IanL said:

But they should be concerned though shouldn't they. 

Probably, but if I were a Chinese nationalist, I would probably want Russia to win this one.  A weaker America only helps China.  It also I'm sure gives them an excuse for their actions in Tibet.

19 minutes ago, IanL said:

The problem is this forum is supposed to be about a game that is based in Ukraine with a back story that connects to current events. 

I fully, fully agree, and these articles are so much more fun and insightful when everyone is respectful.  Lots of smart people here.  Unfortunately, this thread turned into attack Vlad and Russia because we don't agree.  I felt obligated to stand up for him -- free speech and all, even if the person is spewing stuff that really makes you mad.

And yes, there were some good reasons for us to get involved in former eastern bloc countries.  But equally, there were a ton of not altruistic reasons we acted the way we did there.  Missile shield was a very bad deliberate provocation.

And sorry, you can't actually deal with other countries and people with "TOUGH" and expect everything to be A-OK afterwards.  It sucks, but the world doesn't revolve around the west, and we actually have to deal with these people.  Keep telling China "TOUGH" and see how they treat us in 50 years.

[A Canadian Cat]

34 minutes ago, hattori said:

I understand that you disagree with what I say, and that you are riled up, but you do need to clearly read what I write.  At no point am I ever saying Russia's actions are okay.  In my opinion, they aren't.  

Humm OK that was not how I read it.  Thanks for clarifying

34 minutes ago, hattori said:

What I am saying is Russia isn't doing this out of the blue, they have reasons why they are acting why they are acting.  To them, they feel they are justified.  Vlad is Russian.  He feels justified with his country's actions.  If he has his opinion, so be it.  I don't have to like it, but if I'm going to deal with it, I better sure know why the Russians are acting the way they are, and what their reasoning might be.

Ah see there ya go.  I'm confused again.

I do listen and now understand better where the Russian government is coming from.  I don't feel like giving them a free pass to continue to behave badly because of that understanding. Sorry man, which is it: do you agree the Russian government is behaving correctly or badly with regard to Ukraine?

 

34 minutes ago, hattori said:

And sorry, you can't actually deal with other countries and people with "TOUGH" and expect everything to be A-OK afterwards.

LOL good point.  However the opposite is true as well.  You can't expect to deal with other countries with "we own you and you serve us" and expect everything to be A-OK afterwards.  Some guy on a forum saying "TOUGH" or for that matter western countries allowing former oppressed peoples to join NATO is not even close to the provocations and now outright invasion and annexation of territory in the same region made by the Russian Government. 

[cool breeze]

Well said Hattori!

 

7 hours ago, Sublime said:

Cool breeze

Regarding ending the cold war and "actually reducing our nukes"

ACTUALLY we.ve tried to get the Russians to lower the amount quite a bit. They insist on keeping nukes and that all of us gttn rid of ours would destroy  MAD  and thus plunge the world into anarchy. Same defense they use for the missile shield.

And ACTUALLY in the 90s we were PAYING the Russians to guard their own nukes! And more than 10 still are missing!

I wasn't talking about working out a nuke reduction deal withRussia, I was talking about unilaterally reducing our arsenal to be only able to kill maybe half of the worlds population in one go.  Or maybe we could just be able to nuke the worlds bigger capital cities to dust.  I think being able to threaten 10 percent of a populace with instant destruction is enough, no need to threaten the whole country.

 

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Er... might a well get rid of the military and all dance around with flowers in our hair while we're at it The truth is the world is a very nasty place.  Whenever the US withdraws it's military and influence from a region things get WORSE, not better.  Then said regions, and countries with interests in the area, blame the US for abandoning the place.

 

As a patriot on a wargame forum, I was NOT arguing we should stop having a strong military or even by far the best in the world, just that I think the time for us having SO MUCH nukes and covert operations should be past.

 

Edit to add:  And sure, yeah, AFTER we go somewhere and destroy the established power structure, and then fill the void ourselves, and then leave the area, leaving a power void, things get worse.  shouldn't be a surprise.  Doesn't really mean we should be intervening everywhere in the first place.

Edited September 16, 2016 by cool breeze