Quote (ferdia @ 1 Apr 2022 13:36)

I would say, in a scenario where Putin was no longer the leader of Russia, there is no scenario where a regular democracy would or could be created, at this time, noting there too many internal vested interests to my mind to enable this. Yes it would be great if Alexei Navalny was Russia's next leader and he had the support from a "new" government, but that is simply not plausible. instead what we are likely to see after Putin (whether in 1, 10 or 20 years time) is caretaker leaders, or strongmen in the mould of Putin, but with not as big a hard-on re: USSR as Putin has.

While America is all happy to give countries democracy just look at the middle east to see how well that goes. the whole idea of regime change is all well and good, provided it stays as an idea. Going half way around the world in the name of freedom...at a certain point one has to wonder if its all about freedom or vested interests.

going back on topic - In terms of conscription I see this as the alternative to Belarus entering the war.

Quote (Lebanon961 @ 1 Apr 2022 13:34)

That has nothing to do with the post you quoted. I don't give a fuck about Putin or so-called democracy.
In my view, American unipolar hegemony including itss tentacles such as the imperial NATO is the biggest danger to the world.
Until more balance in global power is achieved and the dominant powers behave better on the world stage I support anyone or anything that weakens this hegemony.
Btw, it is Europe's interest to ally with Russia, it is a shame EU is too dependent on the American military to make rational self-interest decisions.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 1 2022 09:45am)

I didn't say "conquer Russia", I said "conquer Moscow". Also note that the capacity for airborne operations and invasions is much higher today than it was in 1941 or 1812.

For example, the nazis had to waste weeks of crucial time and tons of equipment and fuel to conquer entrenched cities like Smolensk or Kharkiv, which caused them to arrive at Moscow and Leningrad too late and in a too depleted state to conquer these cities before the onset of winter. Nowadays, with the support of cruise missiles, helicopters and jets, such a resistance could be broken much more quickly. NATO would also have the capacity to conquer some big airfield in Western Russia and manage the logistics for its troops from there, rather than depending on trucks and trains which have to travel thousands of miles through the Eastern European wasteland to deliver supplies to the front.

Quote

Even civilian systems like the stock market are reliant on satellites because GPS systems "time-stamp" stock trades, according to Singer.

"If you were an adversary attacking the US, you’d start by attacking satellites," said Singer. "The first shots in a war between the US and China or Russia, no one would likely hear."

China and Russia also rely on space systems for numerous functions, but the US is more heavily dependent. Chinese and Russian jets still use analogue systems in their older jets and tanks and boats, and could operate better without satellites.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 1 Apr 2022 15:00)

Defensive positions in foreign lands are much harder to conquer when they are also using modern weaponry.

Quote

the Russians would simply disable western satellites and cut crucial internet cables that would make so much US American high grade equipment completely inoperable.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 1 2022 10:04am)

Exactly. Russia doesn't have modern weaponry in large quantity. They're still using T-64s and T-72s in Ukraine, lol.



https://i.imgflip.com/6b0gzn.jpg

Quote (Saucisson6000 @ Apr 1 2022 02:54pm)

Yes, but it wouldstill be a further step in west direction. The second one since 1991, this is how i see it. It's not very complicated.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 1 2022 09:08am)

Maybe, or maybe they just aren't willing to go balls-deep into this conflict so as to exhaust themselves militarily. I personally think the calculus is the long-game. Why would I fall into the NATO trap of having my military depleted and spent on a war in Ukraine when if war breaks out with NATO, that's the real war for survival.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Apr 1 2022 10:16am)

I think the calculus was originally the short game because they thought it would be easy then they realized they weren't prepared for this conflict in the slightest and had to switch gears to a war of attrition.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Apr 1 2022 03:16pm)

I think the calculus was originally the short game because they thought it would be easy then they realized they weren't prepared for this conflict in the slightest and had to switch gears to a war of attrition.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 1 2022 03:23pm)

I mean I largely agree with this, I think they weren't prepared for this level of resistance, combine that with western arms then it surely complicates the objectives for Russia. They wanted a quick in and out with a regime change.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 1 2022 09:23am)

I mean I largely agree with this, I think they weren't prepared for this level of resistance, combine that with western arms then it surely complicates the objectives for Russia. They wanted a quick in and out with a regime change. Like right now, much of Ukraine's armed forces have been wiped out (what I mean is things like hardware, military production, etc) but that doesn't mean they can't fall back into the cities and wage a guerilla war with stingers and javelins.

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 1 2022 10:26am)

when we busted in and left sadaam in power it was quick, when we removed him it was hell.

quick victories these days are shallow, and real victory ranges from expensive to impossible.