Putin takes swipe at US in Victory Day speech

[Thongkorn]

Do you think the Outdated A-10, could take this out, anyone?

Yes to your answer, its not the plane its the weaponry, I have worked with these planes and they are still a potent force,

[Thongkorn]

bloody shameful for the lack of respect for the country that won the war and suffered such tremendous losses in doing so. The europeans should line up to kiss his ring as they would the pope.

Would this be before or after Britain saved Russians from starvation, flying thousands of plane loads on to Russia to stop them starving. Also providing them with German plans of attract from Bletchly park, The Russians greatly exaggerated the death numbers, adding the millions that Stalin murders just to prove who was boss.

[Publicus]

Guess it's not designed for street use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZISKgCsLWE

It'll be in the news any time now that one Russian Army tank crew has been reassigned to the Siberian Dog Sled Arctic Patrol whose motto is, you break down up here and you die period.

[rijb]

In his speech to the assembled troops and veterans, President Vladimir Putin said that the carnage of the war underlined the importance of international cooperation, but "in the past decades we have seen attempts to create a unipolar world." That phrase is often used by Russia to criticize the United States' purported aim to dominate world affairs.

Not sure how the AP interprets this statement as taking a "swipe" at the US, when every word of it is true...

Like the U.S.S.R. tried to do and failed...

[user786895]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs

You are believing your own propaganda.

Russia had won the Afghan war, but Gorbachev ordered them out. Bit like Vietnam where the US won the war and the politicians snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Tanks are obsolete now. A man carried weapon can easily destroy them. However, it's not the thread to be getting into modes of warfare.

Brits are smart and tough

Hmmm. Britain made it's mark in the world with tough guys from the slums. Like all western countries, increased wealth and decreased activity makes for soft unfit people, and they would be hard pressed to find enough hard men to fight more than a limited war now. I think they might even have trouble repeating the march to Mount Longdon now. I could be wrong on that, but I know the US army is having problems finding enough fit men to join up, and the British army has been gutted by the government.

With the greatest of respect to your view on history, Britain had an empire upon which the sun did not set before slums had even been 'invented'. And a hoodlum from the slums does not make for a good or a tough soldier in the British Army, no matter how hard he and his mates thinks he is...

Edited May 10, 2015 by NickNick

[2alex4alex]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

"Brits are smart and tough"- I agree..if we talk about past.Not about new generation. They are getting soft. Now they don't know how to deal with all these migrants. Because they are just afraid of them. " I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil"- What about anti-Soviet resistance movements in Baltic countries, Ukraine and Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers? They all was defeated by Soviet Union...This dispute remind me my childhood..When being kids we used to argue who is stronger- elephant or whale? BTW I'm Russian and I really hope we'll never be forced to check out whose army is more tough. Let's remember the lessons of WW2.

[anon4546543]

After Russia sided with Nazi Germany and murdered many Finns and Polish, it found itself invaded by its former ally. The Russians then became an ally to the west and sacrificed millions of its citizens to finally help to defeat the Nazis. But Russia pays no homage to the mostly British seamen and airmen who supplied fuel and war goods to Murmansk during these dark years. The sacrifice of British naval and merchantmen and airforce personnel who supplied these goods is largely overlooked.. And now, Russia still rattles its worn out sword to the west. May the Russian Putrid RazPutin rot in hell.

[Dannyboy666]

Sure, and why not? if I were Putin, I'd also shoot my mouth off, why? because he can and he knows

the that ninny of a president Obama will not react, he didn't react at worse things Putin did, why start now?

Yea, that ninny should take military action against Russia for its unilateral seizing of Ukraine sovereign territory, oh yes and China for its unilateral claiming of the South China Sea, and then N. Korea to halt their developing a nuclear program, hmm speaking of which, he should take on Iran for the same reason........Understand you don't like Obama being elected POTUS for 8 years. Well, I really felt the same with Bush Jr. .... 8 TRILLION spent on current wars, not to mention the young men and women sent in harm's way and you want more action? What you own "defense" manufacturing stocks?

. Just hearing

Jeb Bush's name, Makes me sick to my Stomach...

[Humberstone]

After Russia sided with Nazi Germany and murdered many Finns and Polish, it found itself invaded by its former ally. The Russians then became an ally to the west and sacrificed millions of its citizens to finally help to defeat the Nazis. But Russia pays no homage to the mostly British seamen and airmen who supplied fuel and war goods to Murmansk during these dark years. The sacrifice of British naval and merchantmen and airforce personnel who supplied these goods is largely overlooked.. And now, Russia still rattles its worn out sword to the west. May the Russian Putrid RazPutin rot in hell.

The Russians didn't just 'help' as you put it - they were the country that paid the butchers bill in terms of blood sacrifice, running to uncountable millions. There is no doubt that the Red Army were responsible for defeating the Nazis, almost 80% of German casualities sustained in WWII were on the Russian front.

Don't be swayed by the piffle-history peddled by many and Hollywood spin that downs play the role played by the Russians, it's wrong. Read some proper history by a decent historian.

If there isn't a memorial to the Murmask convoys, then that is a shame I agree.

[metisdead]

Some off topic deflection posts have been removed.

[BestBitterPhuket]

Very ungrateful on such a day. Without american intervention and aid during WWII, they would be speaking German in Moscow today. That's a fact.

[Humberstone]

Very ungrateful on such a day. Without american intervention and aid during WWII, they would be speaking German in Moscow today. That's a fact.

That's nonsense. The Red Army defeated the Germans in the Battle of Moscow in early 1942, just after the entry of the USA into the war and a long time before any lend-lease aid or materiel had time to reach them.

[Scott]

Stay on topic. We do not need to re-fight WWII.

[thaibeachlovers]

Not to be outdone however we have Vlad the Night Wolf.....

Putin's new tanks are anyway insignificant as the overall military balance in quality and quantity between Russia and all of Nato is completely one-sided. Nato is led by the United States whose military is the only one that can shut down Russia's cyber warfare capabilities. Nato was founded in 1949 because the then Russian Soviet Union had enough tanks to roll over the plains of eastern and all of Europe. Not any more.

In World War II Russia needed instant tanks that were faster and smarter than the Nazi tanks and did make them. In WW2 everyone had tanks superior to the US but if the Soviet Union then had had to fight the US instead of the Nazis, then as now the overall integrated warfare systems of the US would have prevailed.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself. Seriously. The UK is well equipped, has tough people and Russia is a paper tiger.

Germany couldn't because it relies too much on the US for military including large US naval and air bases there.

Russia is logistically a long, long way from the UK, France, Italy etc. and these tanks are better for defense until one of the UK's drones arrives.

Russia can't project military power unless it's nukes. It simply doesn't have the horsepower to move and cover much area. It would never get to Germany. Unlike the US which has the massive and destructive carrier groups and bases all over the globe, Russia is a one trick pony. Putin knows it so he blusters.

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

Agree the defense cuts in the UK have been swathing and very, perhaps even too near the bone.

But no one has ever won in Afghanistan - not the British in the 19th century, not the Soviets in the 20th century and not even the mighty wonderfully resource Americans in the 21st.

Russia is good at defending itself, making best use of its extreme winters and scorched earth policies, as Napoleon and Hitler found out. In other wars - didn't do so good against Japan in 1905; or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Not so good on the offensive unless it's a country that was part of the USSR.

I think you are wrong about the Russians losing in Afghanistan. They had solved the problem of American supplied missiles and could easily crush the poorly armed opposition. It was Gorbachev that made them leave.

I'm not saying that their tactics were acceptable though, but they did work.

quote removed to allow posting

[thaibeachlovers]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs

You are believing your own propaganda.

Russia had won the Afghan war, but Gorbachev ordered them out. Bit like Vietnam where the US won the war and the politicians snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Tanks are obsolete now. A man carried weapon can easily destroy them. However, it's not the thread to be getting into modes of warfare.

Brits are smart and tough

Hmmm. Britain made it's mark in the world with tough guys from the slums. Like all western countries, increased wealth and decreased activity makes for soft unfit people, and they would be hard pressed to find enough hard men to fight more than a limited war now. I think they might even have trouble repeating the march to Mount Longdon now. I could be wrong on that, but I know the US army is having problems finding enough fit men to join up, and the British army has been gutted by the government.

With the greatest of respect to your view on history, Britain had an empire upon which the sun did not set before slums had even been 'invented'. And a hoodlum from the slums does not make for a good or a tough soldier in the British Army, no matter how hard he and his mates thinks he is...

And it was poor tough boys that won it, Scots and Irish. Have you forgotten that Wellington called his troops "scum"?

a hoodlum from the slums does not make for a good or a tough soldier in the British Army,

In a hand to hand fight I'll take the hoodlum over the middle class boy that never was in a fight in his life.

[Publicus]

Agree the defense cuts in the UK have been swathing and very, perhaps even too near the bone.

But no one has ever won in Afghanistan - not the British in the 19th century, not the Soviets in the 20th century and not even the mighty wonderfully resource Americans in the 21st.

Russia is good at defending itself, making best use of its extreme winters and scorched earth policies, as Napoleon and Hitler found out. In other wars - didn't do so good against Japan in 1905; or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Not so good on the offensive unless it's a country that was part of the USSR.

I think you are wrong about the Russians losing in Afghanistan. They had solved the problem of American supplied missiles and could easily crush the poorly armed opposition. It was Gorbachev that made them leave.

I'm not saying that their tactics were acceptable though, but they did work.

quote removed to allow posting

Witness the US in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan while also keeping in mind Iraq, if after going on ten years of major fighting in a foreign country you haven't already won the war, it's long past time to cut one's losses and get out, which is what the Russian Soviet Union finally did in Afghanistan in 1989. The Russian Soviets left nothing behind in Afghanistan except a lot of demolished military equipment, helicopters and tanks especially.

Gorbechev did what was required of him by Russian Soviet parents and citizens, nothing more and nothing less.

The Russian Soviet military wasn't eager to get yanked out but it was a relief to them. Putin needs to suffer the same kind of cost to Russia and to Russians themselves in Ukraine as the Mujahadeen inflicted on Putin's predecessors over there. Ukraine is a different war but war and punishment get pretty stiff no matter who inflicts it or how, where, when.

Putin has been simmered down in Ukraine and has not made any serious moves against Maraupol to try to gain total control over Crimea, so his work remains unfinished which is good. Putin is not about to pull out of Ukraine but the battles there have occurred over a much shorter time than in Afghanistan, Russian Army casualties have been covert, Ukraine is a neighbor of Europe and Nato rather than some distant land or people.

Significantly, the economic and global costs to Putin and to Russians of their aggression in Ukraine have been far greater and more costly than the entire adventure of the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-89. If Putin today starts up one tank in Ukraine it will cost him even more dearly and across the board than it has cost him already.

The smartest thing Putin can do is to get out of Ukraine but he can't and he won't, which makes it worse than Afghanistan was for the Russian Soviets.

[thaibeachlovers]

Agree the defense cuts in the UK have been swathing and very, perhaps even too near the bone.

But no one has ever won in Afghanistan - not the British in the 19th century, not the Soviets in the 20th century and not even the mighty wonderfully resource Americans in the 21st.

Russia is good at defending itself, making best use of its extreme winters and scorched earth policies, as Napoleon and Hitler found out. In other wars - didn't do so good against Japan in 1905; or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Not so good on the offensive unless it's a country that was part of the USSR.

I think you are wrong about the Russians losing in Afghanistan. They had solved the problem of American supplied missiles and could easily crush the poorly armed opposition. It was Gorbachev that made them leave.

I'm not saying that their tactics were acceptable though, but they did work.

quote removed to allow posting

Witness the US in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan while also keeping in mind Iraq, if after going on ten years of major fighting in a foreign country you haven't already won the war, it's long past time to cut one's losses and get out, which is what the Russian Soviet Union finally did in Afghanistan in 1989. The Russian Soviets left nothing behind in Afghanistan except a lot of demolished military equipment, helicopters and tanks especially.

Gorbechev did what was required of him by Russian Soviet parents and citizens, nothing more and nothing less.

The Russian Soviet military wasn't eager to get yanked out but it was a relief to them. Putin needs to suffer the same kind of cost to Russia and to Russians themselves in Ukraine as the Mujahadeen inflicted on Putin's predecessors over there. Ukraine is a different war but war and punishment get pretty stiff no matter who inflicts it or how, where, when.

Putin has been simmered down in Ukraine and has not made any serious moves against Maraupol to try to gain total control over Crimea, so his work remains unfinished which is good. Putin is not about to pull out of Ukraine but the battles there have occurred over a much shorter time than in Afghanistan, Russian Army casualties have been covert, Ukraine is a neighbor of Europe and Nato rather than some distant land or people.

Significantly, the economic and global costs to Putin and to Russians of their aggression in Ukraine have been far greater and more costly than the entire adventure of the Russian Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-89. If Putin today starts up one tank in Ukraine it will cost him even more dearly and across the board than it has cost him already.

The smartest thing Putin can do is to get out of Ukraine but he can't and he won't, which makes it worse than Afghanistan was for the Russian Soviets.

if after going on ten years of major fighting in a foreign country you haven't already won the war, it's long past time to cut one's losses and get out

Good advice to give Israel, which has been fighting in Palestine since 1948 .

[Publicus]

Cute doesn't cut it.

[onionluke]

After Russia sided with Nazi Germany and murdered many Finns and Polish, it found itself invaded by its former ally. The Russians then became an ally to the west and sacrificed millions of its citizens to finally help to defeat the Nazis. But Russia pays no homage to the mostly British seamen and airmen who supplied fuel and war goods to Murmansk during these dark years. The sacrifice of British naval and merchantmen and airforce personnel who supplied these goods is largely overlooked.. And now, Russia still rattles its worn out sword to the west. May the Russian Putrid RazPutin rot in hell.

The Russians didn't just 'help' as you put it - they were the country that paid the butchers bill in terms of blood sacrifice, running to uncountable millions. There is no doubt that the Red Army were responsible for defeating the Nazis, almost 80% of German casualities sustained in WWII were on the Russian front.

Don't be swayed by the piffle-history peddled by many and Hollywood spin that downs play the role played by the Russians, it's wrong. Read some proper history by a decent historian.

If there isn't a memorial to the Murmask convoys, then that is a shame I agree.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/70-years-on-the-real-story-behind-the-defeat-of-the-nazis-in-world-war-ii

I cant vouch for the history in this article ,

[ABCer]

Who has got the better and bigger tank is irrelevant.

Nukes are also irrelevant.

Superiority in hardware is irrelevant.

People decide the outcome of any war.

Putin (as a System) can easier start the war compared to USA. But the outcome is clear. He will not be the one to finish it.

Despite his 86% of approval no Russian today will go to die for Putin.

But there are far too many who would gladly take him out. Including his own mob.

This whole Parade business was a show of aggression not strength.

A show by Putin, for Putin and it failed on all scores.

Nobody came to look at the show. No other country has seen necessity to organize a show like this.

To show arms there are exhibitions. To show marching hordes there are Chinese.

I was very disappointed by this Parade.

There are very few of real veterans left alive - they must be in their 90-ies by now.

Their Faterland-cum-Motherland could have shown more gratitude by improving their lot instead of demonstrating new tanks to Chinese, Greeks and R. Mugabe's.

IMHO.

[Publicus]

After Russia sided with Nazi Germany and murdered many Finns and Polish, it found itself invaded by its former ally. The Russians then became an ally to the west and sacrificed millions of its citizens to finally help to defeat the Nazis. But Russia pays no homage to the mostly British seamen and airmen who supplied fuel and war goods to Murmansk during these dark years. The sacrifice of British naval and merchantmen and airforce personnel who supplied these goods is largely overlooked.. And now, Russia still rattles its worn out sword to the west. May the Russian Putrid RazPutin rot in hell.

The Russians didn't just 'help' as you put it - they were the country that paid the butchers bill in terms of blood sacrifice, running to uncountable millions. There is no doubt that the Red Army were responsible for defeating the Nazis, almost 80% of German casualities sustained in WWII were on the Russian front.

Don't be swayed by the piffle-history peddled by many and Hollywood spin that downs play the role played by the Russians, it's wrong. Read some proper history by a decent historian.

If there isn't a memorial to the Murmask convoys, then that is a shame I agree.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/70-years-on-the-real-story-behind-the-defeat-of-the-nazis-in-world-war-ii

I cant vouch for the history in this article ,

Very few would.

It's an anti-Anglo website that spends almost all of its time attacking the US and the UK while praising Putin.

Almost all of those who claim Russia won World War 2 are also consistently anti-American and always have been so.

Russians themselves continue to consider WW2 their great patriotic war of massive suffering and victory, nothing more. That is, the Russians don't claim they won the war and the Russians have never claimed to have won WW2. The Russian view has always been that the victory in the Europe-Atlantic Theater and in the Asia-Pacific Theater was an Allied victory.

Indeed, Germany 70 years ago surrendered to the Allies, the Allied Governments being four: USA, UK, USSR, France.

The war in both the European and Pacific Theater respectively had not been going well for France, the UK, Russia individually or collectively until there were the four Allies from December 7th, 1941 to the surrender of Germany in May 1945 and by Japan formally in September.

Check back on V-J day so we can revisit the matter of who won World War II.

[losworld]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

I don't know what can be more dangerous than pundits talking about conventional warfare when Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Such is the expression walk softly and carry a big stick. I hope you are not delusional enough to believe there can be a winner in a limited nuclear war?

Additionally the warthog is dated and its slow speed is its achilles heel. It can easily be taken out with small missiles. The US knows it and gives it sporadic use.

[Publicus]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

I don't know what can be more dangerous than pundits talking about conventional warfare when Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Such is the expression walk softly and carry a big stick. I hope you are not delusional enough to believe there can be a winner in a limited nuclear war?

Additionally the warthog is dated and its slow speed is its achilles heel. It can easily be taken out with small missiles. The US knows it and gives it sporadic use.

This talk of nuclear weapons that is connected to the Ukraine crisis and that is initiated by Putin and his boot polishers is the talk of deranged demented madmen so it tells us who they are and what they are about. It is the thinking and the talk of the Cave Man were he suddenly to appear today.

Putin at Mt Athos Greece, August 3, 2009.

[losworld]

Russia is a paper tiger

Hitler thought that too.

The UK could give Russia a serious axe whooping all by itself.

The British government has gutted the military to the extent it probably couldn't defeat the Argies if the same situation arose today. They can't even defeat the Taliban.

Paper Tiger comes to mind.

I have said over and over that I don't know of any guerrilla army that's been defeated on its own soil. You mention the Taliban. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and went home ten years later with its tail between its legs. The USA didn't do any better. These wars can't be won under today's rules of engagement which the UK and US follow or soldiers face charges and trial by their own governments.

If we're talking about a war between nations which is about attrition of equipment and personnel like WWII was, all bets are off. The UK would whip Russia because the UK's technology is so much better. The UK has a missile of its own that the US covets and gets. You'd think it would be the other way around. The UK is one of the "Club of Five" with every way there is to deliver a nuke including from a nuclear sub. That's a deterrent to other nukes.

Russia isn't that much. It's big talk but what is its latest invention? Tanks that the UK could take out with drones. The UK was flying US drones out of Afghanistan and controlling them from London. The UK has its own good drones. Russia doesn't have stealth. The UK has US nuclear subs and its own missiles.

Please don't ever forget something else. The UK can have anything it wants from the US just by whistling.

Something else. Brits are smart and tough. I'm American BTW.

Cheers

I don't know what can be more dangerous than pundits talking about conventional warfare when Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Such is the expression walk softly and carry a big stick. I hope you are not delusional enough to believe there can be a winner in a limited nuclear war?

Additionally the warthog is dated and its slow speed is its achilles heel. It can easily be taken out with small missiles. The US knows it and gives it sporadic use.

This talk of nuclear weapons that is connected to the Ukraine crisis and that is initiated by Putin and his boot polishers is the talk of deranged demented madmen so it tells us who they are and what they are about. It is the thinking and the talk of the Cave Man were he suddenly to appear today.

Putin at Mt Athos Greece, August 3, 2009.

And war itself is not the work of cavemen? Some types of war are permissible and some are not? We need to understand what is going around us. Have a look at the doc "The Fog of War" if you haven't seen it.

[onionluke]

After Russia sided with Nazi Germany and murdered many Finns and Polish, it found itself invaded by its former ally. The Russians then became an ally to the west and sacrificed millions of its citizens to finally help to defeat the Nazis. But Russia pays no homage to the mostly British seamen and airmen who supplied fuel and war goods to Murmansk during these dark years. The sacrifice of British naval and merchantmen and airforce personnel who supplied these goods is largely overlooked.. And now, Russia still rattles its worn out sword to the west. May the Russian Putrid RazPutin rot in hell.

The Russians didn't just 'help' as you put it - they were the country that paid the butchers bill in terms of blood sacrifice, running to uncountable millions. There is no doubt that the Red Army were responsible for defeating the Nazis, almost 80% of German casualities sustained in WWII were on the Russian front.

Don't be swayed by the piffle-history peddled by many and Hollywood spin that downs play the role played by the Russians, it's wrong. Read some proper history by a decent historian.

If there isn't a memorial to the Murmask convoys, then that is a shame I agree.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/70-years-on-the-real-story-behind-the-defeat-of-the-nazis-in-world-war-ii

I cant vouch for the history in this article ,

Very few would.

It's an anti-Anglo website that spends almost all of its time attacking the US and the UK while praising Putin.

Almost all of those who claim Russia won World War 2 are also consistently anti-American and always have been so.

Russians themselves continue to consider WW2 their great patriotic war of massive suffering and victory, nothing more. That is, the Russians don't claim they won the war and the Russians have never claimed to have won WW2. The Russian view has always been that the victory in the Europe-Atlantic Theater and in the Asia-Pacific Theater was an Allied victory.

Indeed, Germany 70 years ago surrendered to the Allies, the Allied Governments being four: USA, UK, USSR, France.

The war in both the European and Pacific Theater respectively had not been going well for France, the UK, Russia individually or collectively until there were the four Allies from December 7th, 1941 to the surrender of Germany in May 1945 and by Japan formally in September.

Check back on V-J day so we can revisit the matter of who won World War II.

This is OT . I remember hearing a story or rumour saying that the red army captured Hitler when they arrived in Berlin and he was held as a secret prisoner and died in a Russian Jail. Well , just an old story I guess .

[anon4546543]

Ok, I will bite once more and then finish. (no pun intended to the Finns that shiver every time they see a Russian uniform) In WW1, the New Zealanders and Australians suffered more casualties per capita than any other nation. (Allies and Axis) But on that statistic, that does not make them win the war. Nor did Russia win the war in WW11 by using stupid full frontal advances to win battles and butcher their own men. (They had political soldiers to encourage frontal assaults or be shot) They looked after their own interest foremost, and then calculated to expand the Russian Empire by the ground that they won. After the Imperial British, (And I include South Africa, Australia, India (including now Pakistan and Nepal, New Zealand and others) halted and then started to defeat Germany in North Africa and then when the US finally committed troops to the European conflict, the war was won in Europe. Russia, after receiving huge amounts of mostly US supplies (mostly delivered to Russia by the British) chose not to bypass defensive enemy concentrated troops, but fought city centric battles (as opposed to the US strategy in the Asia Pacific battle of leap frogging) they over ran a German military that was too far extended. To say the Russians alone won the war is as stupid as saying the English or French or US won the war. For me who helped nurse a naval Australian father, Lest we forget.

[lostoday]

It was written above, "and then when the US finally committed troops to the European conflict, the war was won in Europe." Europe was won before D Day (the invasion of France?)

False, false, false.

The dead from the Normandy invasion deserve a better recounting of history.

Europe was won before the liberation of Paris? How is that possible?

August 17, 1942 - First all-American air attack in Europe.

September 13, 1942 - Battle of Stalingrad begins.

November 8, 1942 - Operation Torch begins (U.S. invasion of North Africa).

November 19, 1942 - Soviet counter-offensive at Stalingrad begins.

January 27, 1943 - First bombing raid by Americans on Germany (at Wilhelmshaven).

May 13, 1943 - German and Italian troops surrender in North Africa.

July 22, 1943 - Americans capture Palermo, Sicily.

January 6, 1944 - Soviet troops advance into Poland.

June 6, 1944 - D-Day landings on the northern coast of France commanded by Dwight Eisenhour. http://www.dday-overlord.com/eng/dday_figures.htm 120,000 Americans and 120,000 British (rough numbers)

August 25, 1944 - Liberation of Paris.

September 13, 1944 - U.S. troops reach the Siegfried Line in western Germany.

December 26, 1944 - Patton relieves Bastogne.

January 16, 1945 - U.S. 1st and 3rd Armies link up after a month long separation during the Battle of the Bulge.

May 7, 1945 - Unconditional surrender of all German forces to Allies.