[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
One can only hope.
France and the UK alone militarily outspend Russia by 350%.[/quote]
Then imagine the military might of the entire EU, bigger then any other military force on earth, IF all of the armies of Europe work together.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.[/quote]
With what? The EU drew down their militaries so far they are not an effective fighting force. Much of their weapons are past the point of useful life and politicians are not inclined to spend more. I don’t see Britian or France sending fighting forces to help Ukraine for example.
European fighting forces have a few combat ready brigades in each country and the rest are an expensive civil service force with guns. Britian has a credible military force that does miracles with the funding they get. The French and Dutch are also strong but small. That’s not enough against a Russian force that wants to be a superpower and will cut off oil and gas to the Europeans if they don’t concede.
The US won’t act on it’s own but if the Russians decide to get the former Republics back and the Europeans want to stop them they will not be able to do it without the US. It’s a European problem alrigh. Big problem.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
One can only hope.
France and the UK alone militarily outspend Russia by 350%.
Then imagine the military might of the entire EU, bigger then any other military force on earth, IF all of the armies of Europe work together.[/quote]
Sadly, Hedo’s right. You see, multiple armies fighting alongside is a logistical disaster. One nation usually has a lot of infighting in it’s own ranks, but the combined european forces? If you’ve been in the army, you certainly know about the stupid beaurocracy. And combining them won’t make it more effective. And like Hedo said you can count the french and the brits in (didn’t know about the dutch), the rest is better of polishing rifles.
A Euroarmy, not in this or the next decade
This is something I cannot understand:
Horrible press? With the eyes on Beijing, the world cares, if anything, much less.
The russians can really thank Georgia for that fine present.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
With what? The EU drew down their militaries so far they are not an effective fighting force. Much of their weapons are past the point of useful life and politicians are not inclined to spend more. I don’t see Britian or France sending fighting forces to help Ukraine for example.
European fighting forces have a few combat ready brigades in each country and the rest are an expensive civil service force with guns. Britian has a credible military force that does miracles with the funding they get. The French and Dutch are also strong but small. That’s not enough against a Russian force that wants to be a superpower and will cut off oil and gas to the Europeans if they don’t concede.
The US won’t act on it’s own but if the Russians decide to get the former Republics back and the Europeans want to stop them they will not be able to do it without the US. It’s a European problem alrigh. Big problem.
[/quote]
I’m not really concerned if the Europeans are up to the task. It’s their problem.
The ranking of the European Military forces.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp
It stinks of hypocrysy when Bush and the Europeans complain of Russia’s “disproportionate response.” Does anyone really believe that if the situation was turned such that the US --or Britain or France for that matter-- was in Russia’s position, that they wouldn’t respond the same way?
From a practical standpoint, the least Russia could do is push for a change of governments in Georgia, given that Saakashvili can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith. Given that this has blown up and they’re already in so deep though, they would be foolish not to try to bring this long running dispute with Georgia to something approaching a final conclusion.
The west should try to ensure that the Russian’s limit their ambitions to a change of governments rather than a change in regime. This is probably about the limit of what we could do and might leave everyone better off in the process.
[quote]etaco wrote:
It stinks of hypocrysy when Bush and the Europeans complain of Russia’s “disproportionate response.” Does anyone really believe that if the situation was turned such that the US --or Britain or France for that matter-- was in Russia’s position, that they wouldn’t respond the same way?
From a practical standpoint, the least Russia could do is push for a change of governments in Georgia, given that Saakashvili can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith. Given that this has blown up and they’re already in so deep though, they would be foolish not to try to bring this long running dispute with Georgia to something approaching a final conclusion.
The west should try to ensure that the Russian’s limit their ambitions to a change of governments rather than a change in regime. This is probably about the limit of what we could do and might leave everyone better off in the process.[/quote]
Good post.
I wonder how much behind the scenes Russian provocation has been occuring. I suspect quite a bit.
Also, to put the geographic scale of this in perspective, Georgia is about the size of the South Carolina and has a similar size population (when measured by headcount, not total mass). South Ossetia is about the size of a mid size US county and has a population listed at 70,000 by wikipedia.
It boggles the mind when modern armies fight over what are essentially medieval fiefs in terms of size and development.
Stratfor: Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia
[quote]Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.[/quote]
And if they fail?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Stratfor: Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia
Stratfor acknowledges Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia [/quote]
Dream on, Ruskies.
From many of these posts, I sense a lot of hatred towards Russians in general.
What’s up with that?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Stratfor: Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia
Stratfor acknowledges Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia [/quote]
And this proves what?
The Russians sure are hard up for some feel good news.
Fuck em’. The last Russians I liked were David Riger and and Anna Pornakova.
From things I have read, the Russian population could go from it’s current 144 million to about 100 million by 2050. Worst case scnerio is 77 million.
All this due to poor health care, AIDSand a low birth rate.
Anyone else hear of this?
Didn’t Vlad give the Russians’ a day off from work last year to spend their energies trying to get pregnant?
Sounds like the Russians should be making love, not war.
[quote]Phate89 wrote:
In the early 1990’s after the collapse of the USSR, South Ossetia and Georgia went to war.
South Ossetia basically won.
S.O. and Georgia signed a peace treaty. Georgia lost all rule over S.O., S.O. was allowed to set up its own government, and Georgia troops had to pull out.
In the past few years Georgia and the USA/NATO/West have warmed up to each other. Especially since Georgia has 2,000 troops in Iraq. Third behind US and UK.
Thursday: Georgia’s President gambles that with the world’s eye on the Olympics, his nation can defend S.O. And, that PM Medved of Russia will not retaliate due to the horrible press of escalating the battle on the opening day of the Olympics.
PM Medved doesn’t fall for it. After trying to get UN to tell Georgia to stop, he sends in the Russian Military.
Russia drives Georgia effectively out of S.O. by this morning.
Russia continues to pound/bomb Georgia’s military installments and military infrastructure to first to teach Georgia a lesson that it cannot invade independent lands on Russia’s borders, second send a message two the other former Soviet state (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Lithuania, Armenia, Lichtenstein, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia) that no matter how warm you get with NATO and the West, they will leave you hanging out high and dry.
In my opinion, Russia is doing the right thing. Georgia’s president made a huge gamble. And, now he is paying the price.
Seriously, what was he thinking.
This is really a huge setback for the Bush administration.
GW has tried to sell NATO membership for old USSR bloc states to our western allies. Georgia acting completely out of line just revamps France, Italy and Spain’s concerns. Further, it will make the old USSR and Eastern European states think twice now about the proposed missle shield.
Example, say all those states above decided to go with the US missle shield plan on their land. And, 1 of the states decides to pick a fight with Russia. Russia probably will bomb all the “shields” in these countries in the name of self defense.
All the while, Eastern Europens have to be sitting on their couches saying, what good is it to be the USA’s ally while Georgia is getting biatchslapped, GW is waving flags at the Olympics?[/quote]
Thanks for posting that
[quote]lixy wrote:
From many of these posts, I sense a lot of hatred towards Russians in general.
What’s up with that?[/quote]
Maybe we do hate them, you know, just like you hate the US.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
And if they fail?
[/quote]
Then they fail, obviously.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
And if they fail?
Then they fail, obviously.[/quote]
A world of China, Russia, and the US would suck. How bout some friendlies.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US would have to decide where to draw the line and the stakes aren’t high enough yet.
We do? Why? Let the Europeans handle it.
And if they fail?
Then they fail, obviously.
A world of China, Russia, and the US would suck. How bout some friendlies.[/quote]
I’m down with a defense alliance including Canada and Mexico. They’re actually on our borders, at least.