Putin: Russia's military is stronger than any potential foe

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Mook23 said:

So did USA 555

I believe the British did also?  Tough country!!!

[Mook23]

10 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Afghanistan war fun facts.

The Soviet Union was in part defeated by the new US shoulder fired Stinger missiles but also by the essentially undefeatable Afghan tribal peoples.

 

The objective of the US war was to remove the Taliban from power and al-Qaeda from the country. The US alliance invaded on 7 October 2001 and achieved its basic goals by December 2001 when the UN established the International Security Assistance Force ( IS AF).

 

Then, the US got boggeeedddd doooooooooowwwwwwwwnnn real slow like the Russians, by the same undefeatable Afghan tribal peoples.

 

sure.

my point was actually: the US supported the "good guys" (mujahideen) in afghanistan to fight the russians... the good guys that became "led" by bin laden a while later ... som naam na

[Mook23]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I believe the British did also?  Tough country!!!

 

note to self: don't invade afghanistan

[Mook23]

43 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Putin  likes  to brag  since  Russia  invaded and occupies  Crimea, and is  fighting  in  Ukraine.  He  also  gets  to stroke  his  ego,  helping Assad in Syria.  Big  Hero,  Big  Dic  is more  like  it.  I wonder what  he  is  planning to do next,  go  after  another  strong country  like  Burma?

Geezer

 

don't underestimate burma... tatmadaw is one of the rare armies with non-stop battle activity/experience since let's say '62... as for putin, he's just the moscow version of trump but with a higher intelligence ;-)

[maewang99]

it's about to change.... something that isn't brought up at all yet.. but is 100% related to this.

March 2017. just past the wonderful 100 day "honeymoon" period... and not a coincidence at that.. it was agreed that way on purpose.

...left out of the earlier posts here of charts about tanks and bombs and aircraft carriers....

but more expensive than all of those weapon systems.... multiplied by about 200 fold (about 170 trillion US dollars in an accrual that doesn't occur because the government uses cash book accounting.... baby boomer old age security and health cover)
 

and the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act put off the raising of the US debt limit until March 2017.  and Medicaid and Medicare spending is accelerating as expected due to the aging of the 80,000,000 US baby boomers.

yet it is already squeezing out capital investment which will lead to stagflation (and even more likely now as Trump is calling for a major weakening of the US dollar against the Yuan, and I guess Thai Baht too).

and this time the markets may listen (including to any 3AM debt limit tweets such as "why not just default?".

but maybe Duterte and Putin and many many other folks are aware of the impending US fiscal position? just maybe???

everyone except Trump???????


 

Edited December 25, 2016 by maewang99

[JAG]

17 hours ago, Diena said:

Why? because he can kick US ass?

No, perhaps because he wishes he could, and is prepared to bankrupt his country in an attempt to get it to a situation where it might ( or he thinks it might).

 

"Guns before butter"; has a familiar ring to it don't you think?

[maximillian]

On 24.12.2559 at 5:26 AM, halloween said:

So not planning to invade Afghanistan again. They did so well there last time.

 

The Sowjet Union is history.

Funny, talking about Afghanistan, neglecting Vietnam, where thousands are still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. No, no, the US have always been the good guys, right ?

[maximillian]

3 hours ago, Mook23 said:

 

don't underestimate burma... tatmadaw is one of the rare armies with non-stop battle activity/experience since let's say '62... as for putin, he's just the moscow version of trump but with a higher intelligence ;-)

 

That's for sure. And may I ad: not as evil as Killary.

 

[maximillian]

4 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Putin  likes  to brag  since  Russia  invaded and occupies  Crimea, and is  fighting  in  Ukraine.  He  also  gets  to stroke  his  ego,  helping Assad in Syria.  Big  Hero,  Big  Dic  is more  like  it.  I wonder what  he  is  planning to do next,  go  after  another  strong country  like  Burma?

Geezer

 

Geezer, you need to know more about Ukraine and the Crimea.

But don't wait for FoxNews or CNN to educate you

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, maximillian said:

 

The Sowjet Union is history.

Funny, talking about Afghanistan, neglecting Vietnam, where thousands are still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange. No, no, the US have always been the good guys, right ?

Nobody has said the US are always the good guys.  A bit off topic.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, maximillian said:

 

Geezer, you need to know more about Ukraine and the Crimea.

But don't wait for FoxNews or CNN to educate you

What is he missing?  It's well known Russia invaded Crimea and took it over and has troops in Ukraine.  Hard to deny that.

[maximillian]

32 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What is he missing?  It's well known Russia invaded Crimea and took it over and has troops in Ukraine.  Hard to deny that.

 

In 1954, the Soviet Union, then under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from the USSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Ethnic Russians account for 58 percent of Crimea's population, while Ukrainians make up 24 percent. Crimean Tatars, who began returning to the peninsula from exile after the fall of the Soviet Union, comprise 12 percent of its population.
In a recent poll of Russians by the state-run All-Russia Center for the Study of Public Opinion, 56 percent of the respondents said they saw Crimea as belonging to Russia.

The majority of 58 % are Russians who voted for Russia. There was no invasion and no annexation but a secession. Hard to deny that.
 

[rabas]

21 minutes ago, maximillian said:

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

What is he missing?  It's well known Russia invaded Crimea and took it over and has troops in Ukraine.  Hard to deny that.

 

In 1954, the Soviet Union, then under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from the USSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Ethnic Russians account for 58 percent of Crimea's population, while Ukrainians make up 24 percent. Crimean Tatars, who began returning to the peninsula from exile after the fall of the Soviet Union, comprise 12 percent of its population.
In a recent poll of Russians by the state-run All-Russia Center for the Study of Public Opinion, 56 percent of the respondents said they saw Crimea as belonging to Russia.

The majority of 58 % are Russians who voted for Russia. There was no invasion and no annexation but a secession. Hard to deny that.
 

You missed some parts.  From WIKI...

 

The annexation [of Crimea] was preceded by a military intervention by Russia in Crimea, which took place in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine.[32][33]

 

Since the Crimea legally belonged to Ukraine, the referendum, now under guns, was not legal according to Ukraine. Ukraine considers the annexation to be a violation of international law and earlier agreements by Russia,

 

Crimea first became part of Russia after being conquered in 1783. The region was originally occupied by the Neanderthal until about 44,000 BC.

Edited December 25, 2016 by rabas

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Nilats]

"The Russian military has always suffered from issues. Look how they have actually performed over the centuries. 

Against Napoleon - poor; Crimea - poor.  1905 whipped by Japan; WW1 poor prior to collapse due to revolution; WW2 poor but received massive allied help. 

They are good when opponents invade their country and are unprepared for the serious conditions of their winter. They relied on throwing waves of manpower at the opponents regardless of their own losses."

 

About Napoleon - French losses vs Russian losses were 3 to 1, if you count just the regular and not peasants and militia then I think it's 4 to 1. Out of 700,000 troops of Grande Armee - the largest and mightiest standing army ever assembled in Europe to that date - only about 20,000 soldiers returned home. The Russian regular army had only 200,000 troops for example and they defeated a much larger force and took much fewer casualties. If this is poor then what is good in your opinion? Napoleon invasion of Russia is the biggest military humiliation for Europe in history that some people still can't get over.

 

Crimea - Russia single handedly fought against 3 Empires about the same size as Russia itself - French, British and Ottoman - in resources and manpower, technology each one of them could match Russia on its own. They fought over a few years and the French/British/Ottoman losses were 2 to 1 against the Russian losses though mostly due to disease. Russia chose to abandon the fight because Austro-Hungarian Empire - another Empire with resources and manpower about the size of Russia threatened to join against Russia as well. So Russia figured it was pointless to fight a war alone against 4 large Empires on European continent. Later they won all the territory and status of Crimea back through diplomacy. Though it was a defeat, their performance in that war given the odds they were fighting against was nothing short of spectacular imo. Their enemies never managed to capture Sevastopol by force.

 

WW1 - wasn't poorer than anybody else. The Russian Brusilov Offensive was the largest in history to that date and also the most successful in WW1, it proved to be decisive for the Western Front. The Germans lost the Battle of Verdun because of the Russian Brusilov Offensive in the East. Poor - maybe, not all of it was poor - the Western Allies didn't perform that much better, the Russian efforts were decisive in that war, without it the Central Powers would have won the war on the Western front.

 

WW2 - not poor but actually really impressive if you study it more carefully. And they didn't rely much on allied aid either. 99% of Russian weapons used in that war were made in Russia itself. And the common misconception of Russia just using manpower is also commonly thrown around but is actually wrong and doesn't give an accurate picture of what happened. Every battle that Germans won on the Eastern Front was also because of their numeric superiority which they exploited quite thoroughly during the first year of the war, they didn't actually perform that much better than the Russians. When Russians regained numeric superiority just before the battle of Moscow - they won every single battle after that all the way back to Berlin.

 

Just some info for you, I hope this doesn't get deleted. lol

[Scott]

It won't be removed.   It's slightly tangential, but it does address the military strength of Russia, at least historically.  

 

I would expect nothing less from someone whose username is Stalin spelled backwards, though.

[onthesoi]

1 hour ago, Nilats said:

"The Russian military has always suffered from issues. Look how they have actually performed over the centuries.

 

How many times has Russia been occupied over the centuries?

 

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by onthesoi

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, maximillian said:

 

In 1954, the Soviet Union, then under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from the USSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Ethnic Russians account for 58 percent of Crimea's population, while Ukrainians make up 24 percent. Crimean Tatars, who began returning to the peninsula from exile after the fall of the Soviet Union, comprise 12 percent of its population.
In a recent poll of Russians by the state-run All-Russia Center for the Study of Public Opinion, 56 percent of the respondents said they saw Crimea as belonging to Russia.

The majority of 58 % are Russians who voted for Russia. There was no invasion and no annexation but a secession. Hard to deny that.
 

Understood Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine.  Something most were not happy about.  But it was a legal transfer, and was taken back illegally.  No way to argue around that.  It was an invasion, even Putin admitted it.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226

 

Quote

 

Vladimir Putin has admitted for the first time that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the referendum on self-determination.

Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula.

 

 

The smoking gun:

Quote

 

On 27 February, unidentified armed men seized the local parliament and local government buildings in Crimea, raising the Russian flag.

Among them appeared to be regular soldiers without military insignia, who were dubbed the "little green men".

Mr Putin subsequently admitted deploying troops on the peninsula to "stand behind Crimea's self-defence forces".

 

 

Even he calls it an annex.  Done illegally with the support of the army.  The vote was irrelevant.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

How many times has Russia been occupied over the centuries?

Or another question: how many countries has Russia invaded and taken over during the past 100 years?  The list is rather long.

[Kiwiken]

50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Or another question: how many countries has Russia invaded and taken over during the past 100 years?  The list is rather long.

And all have left with their tails between their legs. It is not just the Russian Winters or long Supply lines that sap them it is the Russian mentality to Scorch and burn rather than surrender. In WW2 the Russians made every City a Fortress this caused the Germans delays and heavy casualties while giving the Russians . Time to more their war production East of the Urals.

The German intelligence was based on the Assumptions gained from the Winter war between Russia and Finland. What the Germans did not realise was the Soviet Armies were reorganising and equiping when they attacked. Yes the destroyed the Russian Frontier Armies and Airforce but only the oldest stuff the Russian left facing the west. The T34, KV1, Srturmovik and Yak Fighters plus the Russian PPSh41 and Tokarev rifle came as a shock to the German. Underestimating the Russian Military has cost many Nations over the Centuries. 

[chainarong]

This guy isn't consistant,  two months back he admitted the US was the only superpower, not that the Russians would have the balls to find out , Putin reminds me of the school yard bully,  until someone actually takes him on , then he goes to water,  similar to B/S. I'm not from the US.

[islandguy]

would be interested to have someone knowledgeable comment on China's military in relation to this topic. I agree that the Western powers would have almost no chance for a successful invasion of Russia. All of this neglects the overriding aspect of the devastation caused by nuclear weapons, and their effect on the whole world - what short memories we have.

[maewang99]

not nuclear, if it ain't ever gotten to that by now..... it won't... i.e. Vietnam DMZ and China. we don't ever really tread there.. although maybe Trump would.. and then nothing matters any more not even the Climate.

conventional and ****irregular**** (ahem!) warfare..... don't forget that the 2015 budget deal expires March 15.  and that will be bigger than sequestration was.  Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security spending are accelerating as expected....

and rates are going in a new direction??? while Trump wants the dollar against the Yuan to go in the other direction?????

and Trump hasn't hardly broached what he will do about the 3rd Rail of American Politics....

because on THAT little issue he is a total whimp... and he don't like being a whimp (ah, being seen as one).

and for anyone who thinks this is off topic.... being the World's Policeman is very expensive...... at some glorious, but not so patriotic, time, the USA will go bust if it don't change that. but it better not affect my Social Security check.... or Russia will go one spot down the government's problem list lickity lickity split.

so........... NOT off topic at all.

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by maewang99

[Nilats]

17 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

How many times has Russia been occupied over the centuries?

 

 

 

Occupied - never, it's too large to be occupied completely. The closest call was when the  head of Poland Sigismund Vasa the third conspired with Russian Boyars to help him invade and become the new Tsar of Russia. They largerly succeeded and Sigismund fought his way to Moscow and was proclaimed Tsar with backing of majority of Boyars. Half of the country didn't recognize the new Tsar and then immediately rebellion began and he was quickly booted out of the country.

 

That was the first of the pattern of large Western invasions of Russia. The Polish did it first - they took Moscow but couldn't keep it - this was in beginning of 17th century

 

In the beginning of 18th century the Swedish Empire landed in mainland Russia and launched 5 or more attacks and fought  a major war with Russia with intent to eventually take Moscow, they also failed.

 

In the beginning of 19th century Napoleon went to Moscow - and we know what happened.

 

In 20th century Hitler went to Moscow and that also ended in disaster.

 

The Russians interpret the current events as another in the series of the usual pattern of the West to invade Russia in the beginning of every century. The Russians don't believe that the West is ever up to any good - it's easily confirmed by history and facts, when we have such an obvious continuous pattern of Western countries constantly invading Russia strictly at the beginning of every century - it's what the Russians expect and prepare for. And as history shows each such unsuccessful western invasion always ends up with the Russian territorial expansion.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

Occupied - never, it's too large to be occupied completely. The closest call was when the  head of Poland Sigismund Vasa the third conspired with Russian Boyars to help him invade and become the new Tsar of Russia. They largerly succeeded and Sigismund fought his way to Moscow and was proclaimed Tsar with backing of majority of Boyars. Half of the country didn't recognize the new Tsar and then immediately rebellion began and he was quickly booted out of the country.

 

That was the first of the pattern of large Western invasions of Russia. The Polish did it first - they took Moscow but couldn't keep it - this was in beginning of 17th century

 

In the beginning of 18th century the Swedish Empire landed in mainland Russia and launched 5 or more attacks and fought  a major war with Russia with intent to eventually take Moscow, they also failed.

 

In the beginning of 19th century Napoleon went to Moscow - and we know what happened.

 

In 20th century Hitler went to Moscow and that also ended in disaster.

 

The Russians interpret the current events as another in the series of the usual pattern of the West to invade Russia in the beginning of every century. The Russians don't believe that the West is ever up to any good - it's easily confirmed by history and facts, when we have such an obvious continuous pattern of Western countries constantly invading Russia strictly at the beginning of every century - it's what the Russians expect and prepare for. And as history shows each such unsuccessful western invasion always ends up with the Russian territorial expansion.

 

 

Actually, didn't Russia lose territory in the wake of WW1? 

[Nilats]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, didn't Russia lose territory in the wake of WW1? 

 

Well many historians agree that WW1+WW2 was basically the same war just started and then continued later, it wasn't resolved until the end of WW2. So that doesn't really break the pattern. It started in the beginning of century 1914, and ended right before the middle. And if you check Russian expansion - that included Eastern Block and half of Germany itself, that kind of confirms the pattern yet again - that was the largest westward Russian expansion in history. The bigger the invasion of Russia - the bigger is the Russian expansion in the aftermath -  I think that's the pattern.

[Stargeezr]

After  reading  some of the more thoughtful  comments  after  I  wrote  mine,

excluding  the  one  from  Maximillian,  I feel  more  enlightened.  Thanks.

  Ukraine's ex  leader  ran  to Russia,  and I  guess  is  still  a  guest,  or

now  a citizen  since  he escaped  his  old  post  in  Ukraine.  I guess

the  corruption  in  the  past  government ,  was  horrible,,   and  is still corrupt  even

now,  but  at  least  somewhat  way less,  I  would  hope.

Geezer

Edited December 27, 2016 by Stargrazer9889

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

After  reading  some of the more thoughtful  comments  after  I  wrote  mine,

excluding  the  one  from  Maximillian,  I feel  more  enlightened.  Thanks.

  Ukraine's ex  leader  ran  to Russia,  and I  guess  is  still  a  guest,  or

now  a citizen  since  he escaped  his  old  post  in  Ukraine.  I guess

the  corruption  in  the  past  government ,  was  horrible,,   and  is still corrupt  even

now,  but  at  least  somewhat  way less,  I  would  hope.

Geezer

Nope, Ukraine is still massively corrupt.  Sadly.

[Opl]

"the Russian defense budget seems to be entering a slowdown. According to IHS Jane's, military spending in Moscow has seen its first decline since the late 1990s in 2016. IHS is even splitting an incredible forecast: "We expect the Russian defense budget to fall again next year , And goes under the French budget in seventh place around 2020, with a budget of $ 41.4 billion, "said Craig Caffrey, senior analyst at the firm."

 

http://www.janes.com/article/64911/russian-defence-budget-set-to-drop-by-12

Edited December 27, 2016 by Opl

[Guest]

If I recall correctly, Russia has been running out of reserve money for quite some time. This is mainly due lower oil prices. This must hurt even the military budget. 

 

Therefore Russia makes sure nobody forgets that they have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Who would be better to deliver the message than their own boy who is going to get to the White House soon enough.