Ukraine joins Poland
- Thread starter Texas
- Start date
leonAzul
Illuminator
Russian Bombers Could Be Deployed to Cuba
Move Would Be Response to U.S. Missile Defense System, Newspaper Izvestia Says
Link
The airstrips are already there, no silos nor complex infrastructure to organize, construct, and maintain. Although if they have any sense, they'll hold off until after hurricane season--which coincidentally would be just after the US presidential election in November.
Move Would Be Response to U.S. Missile Defense System, Newspaper Izvestia Says
Link
The airstrips are already there, no silos nor complex infrastructure to organize, construct, and maintain. Although if they have any sense, they'll hold off until after hurricane season--which coincidentally would be just after the US presidential election in November.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Also, they may sell some nuke and ICBM to Venezuela, ease off the sanctions to Iran and sell them some equipment for nuclear power and who knows what else..
Let`s hope that the Russians have more common sense than the US..
Last edited:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Russians are in favor of nuclear proliferation. Their sales to Iran for their electric power generation capability, nuclear power, have struck me as above board.
Do you have a reason to believe the Russians are in favor of nuclear weapons proliferation? I don't think their actions have reflected that. They are a signatory of the NPF treaty, and as far as I can tell are supportive of it.
Who have the US been selling nukes to lately, Matteo? They way you put those two facts together ends up as a veiled insinuation that US is supportive of nuclear proliferation. That is not the case. Indeed, it was a great disappointment to the US when Pakistan's nuclear weapons program became public knowledge.
The US/India relationship on security, and nuclear power, is at the moment unclear. I am not sure where it will turn, but I don't get the sense that Washington is encouraging India to develop and maintain nuclear weapons. India already has them, so it's a bit of fait accompli at this point.
DR
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The Russians won the Battle of Moscow without US assistance, and with that battle they won the war. After that it was just a matter of time.
Wire
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
- Messages
- 81
Heh.. you said Soviet Union = Russia. Which is actually the way they consider SU nowadays -- as an era of the Russian Empire.
US assisted with a considerable amount of war materials, it probably didn't necessarily change the outcome but certainly the time scale and the fate of Eastern Europe.
Last edited:
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Um how much gas do you think the US can supply to Ukraine? Winter is comeing up and Putin has his hand on the off tap.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
This one is for anyone who would like a neutral, objective analysis of what the Georgia/Russia skirmish lately has to do with Poland and Ukraine, and the power calculus in Europe.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power
Friedman does a good job of covering the political, and a few of the economic, realities of what's been going on of late.
DR
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power
Friedman does a good job of covering the political, and a few of the economic, realities of what's been going on of late.
DR
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes
Looks like Russia is the one that needs to be worrying:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Closest?
Only?
Most powerful?
Look at a map.
Also note, Matteo, that Georgia is not the closest ally of the US. The relationship is not equal. Our closest allies are the UK, and Canada.
Yes, and the US maintains a hell of a lot more than that in Italy. And Japan.
Do you have a point?
Then you agree with the author, and you almost used that word correctly.
If you presume that is where they were looking, perhaps. Satellites can't look inside of caves, for example, but I generally agree that a mobilization of that sort would be visible, if it happened all at once. The Russians have been, or so Mr Friedman contends, working up to this for some time.
Uh, are you demanding mind reading here, Matteo?
Did you bother reading what Mr Friedman wrote? Rather than make assertions, he makes some observations. He does not presume, as you do, to have all the answers.
Also, I will point out to you: being aware of, and being able to do anything about, the Russians response to the Georgians are two different things.
Look At A Map, Matteo.
You ask this in hindsight. Gee, what a brilliant strategic mind you have. The intel either did or didn't assess the move afoot, but this returns us both to the standard problem.
Being aware of and being able to act in that locale are two different things. Terrain. See, again, the map.
Why? What is your mental block, here? It is difficult for me to be sure either way. I am sure some folks in Washington were warning the White House that things were close, and that Georgia might try this or that, but I want you to do me a favor:
Explain to me why Pres Bush wants Georgia to act in an area where he can't help them substantively if the Russians respond as they are capable of responding?
It is a good question. Let's listen to a possible conversation.
GW Bush: Hey, Shaali man, could you make me look even less competent next week? Go postal in SO, and piss the Russians off. Let's see if they care.
Shaali: Sure thing, W.
A week later.
Shalli: Oh, sheet, the Russians care.
*phone call*
Shaali: Hey, W, I need help.
W: Huh? All I can hear is the screaming here at the swimming pool, Tara won a silver medal in the 50m freestyle. Call me back later.
*click*
Shaali: Well eff me!
==========================================
I suppose it's possible. Georgia the cat's paw, or a feint, to see what Putin will or won't stand for.
You will note that in 1983, USSR/Russia did nothing about Reagan/US in Grenada. Look at a map.
DR
Last edited:
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Which it was. The Bolsheviks didn't intend to break up the Tsarist Empire, they intended to take it over. It took a while to mop up the breakaways, and they had to surrender a lot in the West where the reborn Poles turned them back very emphatically.
The timescale yes - in particular the trucks and tinned-meat that spurred on the frontline effort. That took a year or two out of the war, no doubt about it.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
If Condie Rice didn't worry them (even when making demands to camera) a brief AP report about what Angela Merkel might have said won't either.
This is an unfolding situation; jumping the gun is inadvisable. The whole "what Angela Merkel actually said" thing could take on a life of its own. None of it will have any impression on the Caucasus.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Why? NATO will not persue all out nuclear war over Georgia and has no militry responce below that level. A Georgia with NATO membership would simply give russia a way to humilate NATO.
mr rosewater
Muse
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 610
Why does it have to go nuclear? The U.S. has fought many times and not gone nuclear. I know Russia is held to a different standard but even they would not dare a nuclear war, the world would surely condemn them wouldn't they?
There are some that are so excited that the Bear is back that they forget that the Russian arsenal is so damned old that Putin wouldn't know for sure that he wouldn't be shooting blanks while the US and NATO have both kept their nukes up to date. There is also the fact that his army is a less than half the size it was during the cold war. Russia and Georgia is the same as the US and Grenada it shows nothing other than a small country cannot fight a war with a much larger country.
NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine changes that equation. Poland and Ukraine have a combined population of almost 100 million while Russia has 140 million. The combined populations of former Soviet states far exceeds Russia and are in no mood to allow Russia to intimidate them. Russia can threaten to cut energy supplies to Europe but doing so would cripple its economy a lot more than to Europe's economies.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
They don't start one. They invade then NATO's only option to counter that is nuclear war we do not realisticaly have the capacity to defend Georgia with conventional forces at this time.
Last edited:
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Best we can tell not true. Asside from the new powers it appears that no one has updated their weapon design since the end of testing. This is somewhat sinsible since you know the designs work and trying an untested design is risky.
The US has a program to develop new weapons but it looks rather like a makework program. The UK program is more classified but looks like an attempt at fine tuneing. What the french are up to is always hard to say.
So the actual bombs are about level. Old designs that will work (where work is defined as produce a yield in the megatone range).
Delivery systems are more interesting again neither side has done much of late but we know that Russia continues to launch balistic missles with a fair degree of reliability and regularity. I think the most recent launch was May 14. Thats ignoreing the other deployment options russia has. UK hasn't launched in some years and US launches are limited but there is no reason to distrust the tech at this time. No expecting Russia's nuclear threat to be non active is suicidal.
True but it isn't looking at a large scale invasion of western Europe any more. In adition the raw numbers don't mean much since I doubt a large part of it is actualy capable of reasonable combat operations. But then it doesn't need to be and the percentage that is appears to be growing.
Over simplified since it completely ignore the logicstics aspect (understanbale given the nic mind the confederates lost due to logistic issues).
Oh dear. You think the only pipe to Europe is through Ukraine? Russia doesn't need Ukraine to sell gas to europe. NATO membership of Georgia doesn't help since Russia could invade and occupy anyway. Then NATO loses a large chunk of credibility. Russia doesn't need militry force to threaten Ukraine (indeed other than a stupidly minor boarder dispute of an island there has never been a suggestion it would do so) it just needs to keep it's hands on the gas tap.
You are wrong;
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060...-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html
It is also facing a world in which it has no allies. Russia had its hands full in Chechnya and if you think the Russian military in its present state can act with immunity against the former Warsaw pact countries you are mistaken.
Logistics is not the determining factor it is the effectiveness of the opposition.
Try reading what I wrote, Russia can threaten the west with its energy exports but doing so would wreck its economy that is just barely viable as it is. As for NATO losing credibility if it admitted Georgia then it has no credibility anyway. You may think that Russia is back to being a military Juggernaut but even Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation.