Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 34.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Trading on May 26, 2014, 06:18:46 PM

And the Chechen War wasn't only a guerrilla war. Between 1994-1996 and 1999-2000, it was mainly a conventional war. The Russians failed to kept Grozny in the first war and needed almost a year to conquer Grozny again in 1999-2000, after levelling the city with massive civil casualties. All observers say that the Russian army didn't perform well. The armistice of 1996 confirms that there was a Russian defeat in the first war, since the Chechens kept the ground.

The Russian army was in dire straits during the reign of drunkard Yeltsin (1991-2000). Only when Putin took over as the president, the Army got its life back. Also, it is no secret that the Chechens received massive support from the CIA and Saudi Arabia.

Trading

legendary

Activity: 1455

Merit: 1033

Nothing like healthy scepticism and hard evidence

Quote from: Nathonas on May 25, 2014, 09:51:30 PM

The Russian military has been the best in the world, on par with the Americans for the better part of the last 70 years.

Well, it seems there is agreement that up to 1943 the Russians and the Red Army were mostly terrible.
1944-1945 isn't enough to claim that the present Russian armed forces are good. The Soviet Union had an overwhelming superiority against the Germans, in view of the fact that they were fighting in Italy since September 1943 (and before that in the North of Africa) and in France since June 1944.
And the Chechen War wasn't only a guerrilla war. Between 1994-1996 and 1999-2000, it was mainly a conventional war. The Russians failed to kept Grozny in the first war and needed almost a year to conquer Grozny again in 1999-2000, after levelling the city with massive civil casualties. All observers say that the Russian army didn't perform well. The armistice of 1996 confirms that there was a Russian defeat in the first war, since the Chechens kept the ground.

TaunSew

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 506

Quote from: bryant.coleman on May 26, 2014, 06:57:03 AM

Quote from: mladen00 on May 26, 2014, 06:28:48 AM

they can try..but nobody can invade Russia; that means Nuke war

The threat is real. Russia is having the best Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in the world right now (SS-27, SS-29.etc). And their S-300 and S-400 air defence system is also the best in the world.

If you think nuclear weapons exist in the way you think they do.
People who got firebombed in WW2 and Vietnam got cancer like those in Hiroshima. People question the moon landing and 9/11 but think bugs bunny nukes exist.

Though Russia does have all the missiles and other toys which definitely are real.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: mladen00 on May 26, 2014, 06:28:48 AM

they can try..but nobody can invade Russia; that means Nuke war

The threat is real. Russia is having the best Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in the world right now (SS-27, SS-29.etc). And their S-300 and S-400 air defence system is also the best in the world.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

"You can bugger a bear if you do it with care..."

I think they are going by this Nanny Ogg song rhyme Tongue

mladen00

legendary

Activity: 2124

Merit: 1013

K-ing®

they can try..but nobody can invade Russia; that means Nuke war

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: TaunSew on May 26, 2014, 12:45:16 AM

I doubt ethnic Latvians are anymore enthusiastic about foreign British or Americans in their country. It's great for the hotel and bar owners but, these days in globalized capital, even those people may not be Latvian or Russian in Riga.

Most of the Latvians see the Americans and the British as their allies, who can protect them against the Russian aggression. However, the native Russians consider them to as foreign aggressors.

TaunSew

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 506

Quote from: bryant.coleman on May 25, 2014, 11:43:57 PM

Quote from: TaunSew on May 25, 2014, 11:13:27 PM

I've been to Riga and they already have problems with low class British on stag vacations, which none of the public likes - unless you like drunken lots who urinate on statues and pass out half naked on the street in women's clothing. Adding an American military base would only compound and cause Latvians to hate 'Anglos' even more - Riga would be the next Manila in no time.

This might be slightly off-topic, but I want to pint out that Russian-speakers comprise the majority in Riga, unlike the other parts of Latvia where the ethnic Latvians predominate. Another factor which can result in anti-Anglo clashes.

I doubt ethnic Latvians are anymore enthusiastic about foreign British or Americans in their country. It's great for the hotel and bar owners but, these days in globalized capital, even those people may not be Latvian or Russian in Riga.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: TaunSew on May 25, 2014, 11:13:27 PM

I've been to Riga and they already have problems with low class British on stag vacations, which none of the public likes - unless you like drunken lots who urinate on statues and pass out half naked on the street in women's clothing. Adding an American military base would only compound and cause Latvians to hate 'Anglos' even more - Riga would be the next Manila in no time.

This might be slightly off-topic, but I want to pint out that Russian-speakers comprise the majority in Riga, unlike the other parts of Latvia where the ethnic Latvians predominate. Another factor which can result in anti-Anglo clashes.

TaunSew

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 506

Quote from: bryant.coleman on May 14, 2014, 02:38:56 AM

^^^ A majority of the Latvians will not realize it until it is too late. They are blinded by extreme Russophobia. Some of them will wake up, once the American marines behave like what they have been doing in Okinawa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident

Supposedly the American soldiers in Latvia, as per the joint-exercise Sabre Strike, were complaining about the cold weather as they didn't bring any winter clothing. These Americans, prior to being shipped, obviously didn't know anything about Latvia.

I've been to Riga and they already have problems with low class British on stag vacations, which none of the public likes - unless you like drunken lots who urinate on statues and pass out half naked on the street in women's clothing. Adding an American military base would only compound and cause Latvians to hate 'Anglos' even more - Riga would be the next Manila in no time.

Nathonas

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Knowledge is Power

Quote from: Trading on May 25, 2014, 01:24:15 PM

Anyway, Russians have performed terrible in modern war (the War with Japan of 1904-1905 was a disaster; WW I was terrible against the Germans, but better against the Austrians; the 1938-1939 war with Japan wasn't bad; but Afghanistan and Chechnya were also bad, even if they were not conventional wars), not for lack of bravery or intelligence, but because of poor leadership and, in WW I, lack of resources. I guess merit had little to do about promotion in the army, birth and then politics decided all.

I'm not a fan of war, but as a Russian ex-pat I must object to your narrow view. Yes it is true that in 1904 war and WW1, Russia performed poorly. It could also be argued that Russia performed poorly in the beginning parts of WW2. But from 1943-1945, the Red Army was one of the most effective fighting forces out there - they were hardened by battle, they outsmarted the Germans, and they finally had the organization and supplies they desperately needed.

As for more recent wars, Afghanistan and Chechnya are HORRIBLE examples - these were wars where the enemy was using mainly guerrilla warfare. Would you also say that the American military sucks because they couldn't deal with guerrilla warfare in VIetnam? of course not - in both cases, the guerrillas lost pretty much 10x what the Russians and American casualties were, although they did succeed at making the wars so costly, that both Russia and the US had to pull out of their respective conflicts.

The Russian military has been the best in the world, on par with the Americans for the better part of the last 70 years.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Nemo1024 on May 25, 2014, 03:23:30 PM

That may be one of the reasons they are building up their bases in Europe and Asia, right up on the Russian border: to shorten the logistics line.

Here is a map of the American military bases around the world:

http://empire.is/

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: kerafym on May 25, 2014, 03:18:25 PM

Long logistic line will most likely break US before the attack even begin.

That may be one of the reasons they are building up their bases in Europe and Asia, right up on the Russian border: to shorten the logistics line.

kerafym

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

THE GAME OF CHANCE. CHANGED.

Long logistic line will most likely break US before the attack even begin.

Trading

legendary

Activity: 1455

Merit: 1033

Nothing like healthy scepticism and hard evidence

I read also those claims, but I can't see what lessons the Red Army learned on Finland that limited the disaster of 1941-1943 against the Germans. Could the Red Army perform even worst? The Germans were stopped in December of 1941 (if I recall, don't have patience to go check) at 30km from Moscow, thanks to the information given by Sorge that the Japaneses wouldn't attack on Siberia, allowing forces to be brought to defend Moscow. After the victory of Kursk, things improved, but I think the lessons were learned in 1941-1943 not in 1939-1940.

Anyway, Russians have performed terrible in modern war (the War with Japan of 1904-1905 was a disaster; WW I was terrible against the Germans, but better against the Austrians; the 1938-1939 war with Japan wasn't bad; but Afghanistan and Chechnya were also bad, even if they were not conventional wars), not for lack of bravery or intelligence, but because of poor leadership and, in WW I, lack of resources. I guess merit had little to do about promotion in the army, birth and then politics decided all.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Trading on May 25, 2014, 12:16:49 PM

It's a La Palisse truth that the Red Army performed terrible on the first two years of war, even if it's consensual that it had a strong superiority over Germany in men (in June 1941 not much, but later) and material:
Frontline strength (June 1941):
3.8 million personnel (Axis)
4,300 tanks
4,389 aircraft
7,200 artillery pieces

Frontline strength (June 1941):
2.68–2.9 million personnel
Overall strength (June 1941): 5,500,000 personnel
15,000–25,000 tanks,
35,000–40,000 aircraft (11,357 combat ready on 22 June 1941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

And Stalin had terrible responsibly about that for being caught unprepared, notwithstanding all the warnings, and for killing and removing some of the best prepared and experienced officers in 1937-1939.
(see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6916918).
Even later, save for Stalingrad, the Red Army won most of the battles out of their superiority, not superior tactics of their generals.
But after the disaster of the 1939-1940 Red Army operations on Finland (a 4 million population country!!, what an humiliation...), one shouldn't be surprised.

There is an opinion that these minor losses (lol) ultimately allowed Stalin to win the war with Hitler (Finland specifically)... Cool

Trading

legendary

Activity: 1455

Merit: 1033

Nothing like healthy scepticism and hard evidence

It's a La Palisse truth that the Red Army performed terrible on the first two years of war, even if it's consensual that it had a strong superiority over Germany in men (in June 1941 not much, but later) and material:
Frontline strength (June 1941):
3.8 million personnel (Axis)
4,300 tanks
4,389 aircraft
7,200 artillery pieces

Frontline strength (June 1941):
2.68–2.9 million personnel
Overall strength (June 1941): 5,500,000 personnel
15,000–25,000 tanks,
35,000–40,000 aircraft (11,357 combat ready on 22 June 1941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

And Stalin had terrible responsibly about that for being caught unprepared, notwithstanding all the warnings, and for killing and removing some of the best prepared and experienced officers in 1937-1939.
(see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6916918).
Even later, save for Stalingrad, the Red Army won most of the battles out of their superiority, not superior tactics of their generals.
But after the disaster of the 1939-1940 Red Army operations on Finland (a 4 million population country!!, what an humiliation...), one shouldn't be surprised.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: deisik on May 25, 2014, 09:58:22 AM

If Soviets decided to exterminate all Germans without exception, would you then call it Hitler's and his generals stupidity? Shocked

I was mostly talking about the military deaths. 14 million Soviet servicemen lost their lives (including 3.6 million POW deaths at the hands of the Nazis), along with some 16 million civilians.

The Germans lost a total of 4.3 million servicemen fighting the Soviets, including 374,000 POW deaths. The ratio is one German death to 3.3 Soviet military deaths.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Also, the common sense would say it all depends in respect to attackers losing more people than defenders. If your attack is unexpected (or well prepared), then your losses may be miniscule compared to that of the defenders... Roll Eyes

See Suvorov's assault of Izmail! Grin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: bryant.coleman on May 25, 2014, 09:41:56 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 25, 2014, 08:08:38 AM

What is it? Wishful thinking, some perverted reasoning? The USSR lost about 30 million people due to Hitler and his accomplices (and most of which were civilians). What else could Stalin do? Huh

Normally, if sane people are commanding the armies, then common sense says that the attackers will lose more people than the defenders. Here it was just the opposite. 4 million Germans killed when compared to 30 million Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians. Technology-wise, both the armies were almost equal. 26 million additional deaths caused by the stupidity of Stalin and his ministers.

If Soviets decided to exterminate all Germans without exception, would you then call it Hitler's and his generals stupidity? Shocked

Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 34. (Read 58230 times)