western military a paper tiger?

woodrow wyatt · 11-02-2015 11:51am #1

Since the end of the cold war the west has been involved in a few wars.
Iraq- started strong, but in the end you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Somalia- did not get the result they wanted. Loss.
The Balkans- I read a article a few year ago where a NATO general said if Serbia had held on for another week the bombing campaign would have been over due to the lack of still serviceable planes.A narrow Victory.
Afghanistan-Started strong, and pulling out now, you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Thats just the ones that come to mind.
Now to Russia.
Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.
Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.
Is the much vaunted western military a paper tiger?
Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

gandalf · 11-02-2015 12:52pm

I'm sure these arguments were thrown around cheer-leading a certain country around 75 years ago as well. That worked out well for the world didn't it.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 1:05pm

Better for the military forum..

But all militaries are paper tigers.
All try to appear stronger than they are in reality, there is no exception.

However war is about politics.
Politicians are weak & in the west, subject to the voters.
Its unfair to consider a military weak just because their political leaders are weak.

woodrow wyatt · 11-02-2015 1:14pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

However war is about politics.
Politicians are weak & in the west, subject to the voters.
Its unfair to consider a military weak just because their political leaders are weak.

youtu.be/PQjmwVC_Dts
The locals dont want to fight, the politicians are the people who are wanting war.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 1:18pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

The locals dont want to fight, the politicians are the people who are wanting war.

And professional armies carry out those orders.

However when things get tough, politicians buckle & rarely commit enough to get the job done.

Nondemocratic countries have less to worry on the home front so are less shackled.

Getting back to your point though....
Despite being much weaker today vs 20 years ago, NATO is still the most powerful alliance in the world.

Still a paper tiger, in a world filled with papamer tigers.

woodrow wyatt · 11-02-2015 1:20pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Getting back to your point though....
Despite being much weaker today vs 20 years ago, NATO is still the most powerful alliance in the world.

Its not very good at winning, is it?

sheesh · 11-02-2015 1:20pm

You seem to have forgotten gulf war 1 where they took on another actual army and obliterated them.

As an army the us military is probably unbeatable by another army.

Asymmetric warfare like gulf war 2, Afghanistan are never going to lead to an actual 'victory day'

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 1:26pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Its not very good at winning, is it?

Name the military greater in power than NATO

micosoft · 11-02-2015 1:28pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Its not very good at winning, is it?

Define winning? That's where you need to start from.

If it's to destroy your Enemy and their civilian population it's easy. The US alone could flatten any country they so choose. It's easy to win!

On the other hand if you want to invade to overturn the existing regime and dependents, replacing this with a thriving liberal democracy? Well that's a lot lot harder to Win.

It comes down to what you mean by winning.

Lemming · 11-02-2015 1:41pm

Indeed, in his rather myopic OP, wyatt also seems to have "conveniently" ignored the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and the fact that the Checyan wars were bloodbaths for the Russians and not decisive affairs considering the fact that the Checyan rebels have not been pacified. So no "win" there either.

But as has been raised by others, "winning" is a very elusive term to nail down in the modern era given the shift to asymmetric warfare.

Skylinehead · 11-02-2015 1:53pm

sheesh wrote: »

As an army the us military is probably unbeatable by another army.

Depends where they are really. If the Russians did decide to invade Ukraine, I wouldn't be backing the Americans.

gandalf · 11-02-2015 2:04pm

BTW as an aside it is nice to finally see one of the "supporters" of the Russia action admit that they are directly involved in a war in another country, the Ukraine.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 2:04pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Depends where they are really. If the Russians did decide to invade Ukraine, I wouldn't be backing the Americans.

If America's full might was deployed against Russia's?

That's why the US is stronger.
She can deploy anywhere, whereas Russia can only deploy where its forces can walk/drive to.

riffmongous · 11-02-2015 2:05pm

Well the first Checnyan war was lost by the russians and while the fighting might be more or less over in Chechnya at the moment the conflict now involves a much larger swath of the caucasus. And the difference in backing between the two sides at the moment in the Ukraine is huge

gandalf · 11-02-2015 2:07pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If America's full might was deployed against Russia's?

That's why the US is stronger.
She can deploy anywhere, whereas Russia can only deploy where its forces can walk/drive to.

TBH that is a mute question. The Russians would more than likely use Nukes if the US got directly involved in a shooting war in the Ukraine on the ground.

I view the Putin of today as a bigger threat than Hitler of 1939 because he has Nukes in his arsenal.

Iwasfrozen · 11-02-2015 2:25pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Since the end of the cold war the west has been involved in a few wars.
Iraq- started strong, but in the end you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Somalia- did not get the result they wanted. Loss.
The Balkans- I read a article a few year ago where a NATO general said if Serbia had held on for another week the bombing campaign would have been over due to the lack of still serviceable planes.A narrow Victory.
Afghanistan-Started strong, and pulling out now, you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Thats just the ones that come to mind.
Now to Russia.
Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.
Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.
Is the much vaunted western military a paper tiger?
Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

Let's be honest here, if the entire US and Russian air force, army and marines met on an open field the Russians would be destroyed. Nice going trying to push your agenda though.

Skylinehead · 11-02-2015 3:41pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If America's full might was deployed against Russia's?

Yep, still the case. Obviously disregarding nukes, but they both have plenty of those anyway.

That's why the US is stronger.
She can deploy anywhere, whereas Russia can only deploy where its forces can walk/drive to.

Hence why I said somewhere that happens to be in Russia's backyard

wes · 11-02-2015 3:45pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.

Really? A former rebel is running the place for Putin, and he pretty much get to run the place the way he always wanted......... Seems to me more of a draw, seeing Chechnya stayed in Russia, but they have former rebel running the place........

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.

No one willing to fight them there, so hardly an example of Russian military might. Also, they intent to annex the territory so aren't going to leave. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no such intention, so they were always going to leave at some point.

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

The Taliban were defeated, as well as Saddam's government. Those wars were won. Now getting rid of insurgents is a different story, and requires a lot of money and a hell of a lot more boots on the ground.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 4:04pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yep, still the case. Obviously disregarding nukes, but they both have plenty of those anyway.

Still no though.

Its pretty simple.

- The US 6th fleet would crush the Russian dilapidated Black sea fleet & its AAW capability sufficient to resist air attack from the mainland.
The US 2nd Fleet would face stiffer competition from the Russian northern fleet, but eventually be overwhelmed.

- once the seas are covered, the US air-superiority takes hold. The much vaunted S-300 & S-400 missile batteries will prove ineffective (as demonstrated by Israel in Syria these last few months). America will smash Russia's c&c capabilities.
Russian air power is for the most part, too old & too few to resist.

- with the skys & seas under control, & Russia flailingly blindly, the US can pick its time as to when they deploy on land.
If Russia's conscript army hasn't given up, they will be eliminated in due course.

Hence why I said somewhere that happens to be in Russia's backyard

Which wouldn't matter a jot.

MayoSalmon · 11-02-2015 4:12pm

Russia wouldn't last a day against the Americans...America could blow up this planet tomorrow if they so choose. Thankfully they don't.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 4:13pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Russia wouldn't last a day against the Americans...America could blow up this planet tomorrow if they so choose. Thankfully they don't.

So could Russia.

So neither will.

DavidRamsay99 · 11-02-2015 4:15pm

The Americans lost about 400,000 dead in World War 2 from 1941-1945.
In the Korean War from 1950-1953 they lost about 36,000.
In the Vietnam War from 1955-1975 they lost 58,000.
In the 1991 Gulf War they lost over 250.
In the entire War on Terror (Afghanistan/Iraq) from 2001 to the present they have lost over 5,000.

The Americans have lost on average 1 service person a day since 2001 out of a total population of about 300,000,000 Americans.

In all of American history since 1775 to the present the Americans have lost less than 1,500,000 war dead.

So to sum up, Americans since the 1960s are scared to lose lives and their enemies know this.

By contrast the Russians lost 5,732 from 1994-1996 in the first Chechen War and about 7,500 in the Second Chechen War and in the latest war in Ukraine about 1,500 pro-separatist rebels and Russians have died.

MayoSalmon · 11-02-2015 4:16pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So could Russia.

So neither will.

Not anymore

Skylinehead · 11-02-2015 4:16pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Still no though.

Its pretty simple.

- The US 6th fleet would crush the Russian dilapidated Black sea fleet.
The US 2nd Fleet would face stiffer competition from the Russian northern fleet, but eventually be overwhelmed.

You're assuming it's that easy to get into the Black Sea? You're forgetting that Russia has plenty of modern, capable submarines, and the Bosphorus is a massive chokepoint.

- once the seas are covered, the US air-superiority takes hold. The much vaunted S-300 & S-400 missile batteries will prove ineffective (as demonstrated by Israel in Syria these last few months). America will smash Russia's c&c capabilities.
Russian air power is for the most part, too old & too few to resist.

Syria has and never had S300s or S400s, not sure where you're getting that from. They're far more capable than you give credit for, and being so close to Russia, they could deploy them en masse.

- with the skys & seas under control, & Russia flailingly blindly, the US can pick its time as to when they deploy on land.
If Russia's conscript army hasn't given up, they will be eliminated in due course.

Disagree that they'd have either under total control, so that scenario isn't happening in my eyes.

Which wouldn't matter a jot.

Has history taught you nothing? Attack Russia (or it's backyard), you will lose. They have more experience in massive land wars than anybody else. And the number of tanks (mostly modern as well, there's only a handful of T55s left), so close to Russia so logistics isn't a problem, is going to pose a massive problem for the Americans.

It's certainly not anywhere near a massacre as you've seemed to describe, it's never as easy as that between two actually competent military forces.

Arsemageddon · 11-02-2015 4:30pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Not anymore

Russia and the US both retain vast amount of nuclear warheads deployed on missiles, more held in reserve and tactical nuclear weapons.

As a matter of fact the Russians have more nukes, but less ICBMs.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 4:37pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're assuming it's that easy to get into the Black Sea? You're forgetting that Russia has plenty of modern, capable submarines, and the Bosphorus is a massive chokepoint.

Not in the black sea though...
The cream of their crop in the northern fleet.
The black sea has a dozen or so serviceable akula class attack sub's.
Tbh these are outmatched by the likes of the Virginia class sub's America is rolling out

Syria has and never had S300s or S400s, not sure where you're getting that from. They're far more capable than you give credit for, and being so close to Russia, they could deploy them en masse.

Apologies, I got mixed up with the SA-3 & BUK missiles..... Yes, the S-300/400 may prove tricky to defend against, but survivable..... But no one knows for sure.

Disagree that they'd have either under total control, so that scenario isn't happening in my eyes.

we'll agree to disagree etc...

And the number of tanks (mostly modern as well, there's only a handful of T55s left), so close to Russia so logistics isn't a problem, is going to pose a massive problem for the Americans.

Russia has 750 T-90 tanks
US has 1500+ MIA2 Abrams.

It's certainly not anywhere near a massacre as you've seemed to describe, it's never as easy as that between two actually competent military forces.

No, I was being glib.
Still though, a US victory nonetheless.

Skylinehead · 11-02-2015 4:48pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not in the black sea though...
The cream of their crop in the northern fleet.
The black sea has a dozen or so serviceable akula class attack sub's.
Tbh these are outmatched by the likes of the Virginia class sub's America is rolling out

They're not as modern, but they're still very useful and submarine warfare is still an art form.

Apologies, I got mixed up with the SA-3 & BUK missiles..... Yes, the S-300/400 may prove tricky to defend against, but survivable..... But no one knows for sure.

Well you don't know that they're survivable against. Seemingly these things can even take down B2s and ICBMS, an F16 isn't going to be much use against them.

Russia has 750 T-90 tanks
US has 1500+ MIA2 Abrams.

Why are you ignoring the thousands of T72s and T80s? The T80 is barely older than the Abrams.

No, I was being glib.
Still though, a US victory nonetheless.

I'm still not seeing it.

BoJack Horseman · 11-02-2015 4:57pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

They're not as modern, but they're still very useful and submarine warfare is still an art form.

Very true, that's why the US is unmatched in its attention to training & maintenance.
Their crews spend longer at sea than anyone, they can cos they have the cash.

Well you don't know that they're survivable against. Seemingly these things can even take down B2s and ICBMS, an F16 isn't going to be much use against them.

True I've no idea of plane survivability.
But Russia has just 180-ish of the S400 so it has its limits.

Why are you ignoring the thousands of T72s and T80s? The T80 is barely older than the Abrams.

The same reason I ignored the thousands of M1's & M1A1's..... If you are comparing modern equipment, the US has the quantative edge everywhere.

[QuoteI'm still not seeing it.[/quote]
That's fine.

MayoSalmon · 11-02-2015 5:08pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Russia and the US both retain vast amount of nuclear warheads deployed on missiles, more held in reserve and tactical nuclear weapons.

As a matter of fact the Russians have more nukes, but less ICBMs.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

So they say...Russias military is a dinosaur that is not capable of delivering anything close to a nuclear strike. There in the process of modernization but that is years off.

The US on the other hand is far far far technologically superior and have nukes placed all over Europe

Skylinehead · 11-02-2015 5:14pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Very true, that's why the US is unmatched in its attention to training & maintenance.
Their crews spend longer at sea than anyone, they can cos they have the cash.

They do, and I'm not denying that American submarines would pretty much wreck the Russian surface fleet. Problem is, the Akulas are good enough to do considerable damage to the American one too. Either way, there's no way a carrier group is going to sail into the Black Sea just like that.

True I've no idea of plane survivability.
But Russia has just 180-ish of the S400 so it has its limits.

And a load of S300s too. A proper air defence shield like that, and Americas greatest strength isn't very useful.

The same reason I ignored the thousands of M1's & M1A1's..... If you are comparing modern equipment, the US has the quantative edge everywhere.

Depends on your point of view, there's still 10,000 relatively modern T72s out there. I know they're a little older, but still capable. We're not talking Gulf-War style T55s vs Abrams here. Plus the logistics of getting so many tanks to Eastern Europe isn't easy for America.

Anyway, decent discussion. Obviously it would never happen, but it's interesting what America would do if the S3/400s are as good as is claimed. They always go in with air power first, and if that capability was taken away, what then?

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So they say...Russias military is a dinosaur that is not capable of delivering anything close to a nuclear strike. There in the process of modernization but that is years off.

The US on the other hand is far far far technologically superior and have nukes placed all over Europe

It's not particularly important to have accurate missiles, they're nuclear. Just plonk a few on the East Coast and MAD is assured. But in any case you're understating it, ICBMS from both countries have tremendous capabilities. How would you explain Russia being able to deploy MIRV warheads, which is at least as complex as getting the thing to land where you want it?

Manic Moran · 11-02-2015 5:42pm

Being a non-Black Sea Power, the Montreux Convention limits the US naval presence in the Black Sea to basically two destroyers, or a cruiser and a couple of corvettes, unless Turkey wants to declare war on Russia too in which case the convention limits no longer apply.

Karl Stein · 11-02-2015 6:09pm

Larry Wilkerson (visiting professor at the College of William & Mary, teaching courses on U.S. national security) isn't too confident of the US's ability to even win a proxy war in Ukraine.

gallag · 11-02-2015 6:09pm

I would have to imagine the US would also have many allies, hell the royal navy would reek havoc on the Russians, astute class subs, type 45's etc. In a conventional war the Russians would soon be destroyed.

sheesh · 13-02-2015 5:57pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Depends where they are really. If the Russians did decide to invade Ukraine, I wouldn't be backing the Americans.

No the russians have invaded ukraine and the US is not going to go to war with another nuclear power for the Ukraine. If the Russians want to have a **** load of disaffected Ukrainians as part of their country Good luck to them!

Jawgap · 15-02-2015 2:31pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Since the end of the cold war the west has been involved in a few wars.
Iraq- started strong, but in the end you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Somalia- did not get the result they wanted. Loss.
The Balkans- I read a article a few year ago where a NATO general said if Serbia had held on for another week the bombing campaign would have been over due to the lack of still serviceable planes.A narrow Victory.
Afghanistan-Started strong, and pulling out now, you could not call it a victory, at best a draw.
Thats just the ones that come to mind.
Now to Russia.
Chechnya- could be classed as a internal issue, but non the less Russian victory.
Georgia- After initial surprise of attack, Russian victory.
Ukraine- Crimea taken without a bullet fired, Russian backed force are defeating Western Backed forces. shaping up to be a Russian victory.
Is the much vaunted western military a paper tiger?
Good for shock and awe against minor opposition,but when it comes right down to it not capable of fighting a war against a well trained and armed foe?

Really, - think you'd find many Chechens, Georgians or Ukrainians to agree that they were / are defeated?

Also this what victory looks like for the Russians.....

About 2 years ago it was 30 Roubles to 1 US Dollar, now it's a shade over 70

noname.jpg?resizeSmall&width=1340

Coupled with the decline in the price of oil, I'd say they're in worse shape (and about to get 'worser') than the western militaries - they predicate their budgets based on oil being over $100 per barrel......

GraphEngine.ashx?z=f&gf=110537.USD.bbl&dr=5y

GraphEngine.ashx?z=f&gf=110537.USD.bbl&dr=5y

EDIT: That's even before you get to the impact the food embargoes are having - no one is starving, but a lot of people are paying way over the odds for local produce that is far inferior to the imported stuff they'd become accustomed to. And while they had a record grain harvest in 2014, 2015 is shaping up to be a below average year because of weather conditions and the increased cost of seed, fertilisers and herbicides.

woodrow wyatt · 15-02-2015 5:50pm

Russia debt as % of GDP 11.17% - debt per citizen $1,651
USA debt as % of GDP 104.87% - debt per citizen $57,028

I would call this a win for Russia, would you not?

Jawgap · 15-02-2015 6:24pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Russia debt as % of GDP 11.17% - debt per citizen $1,651
USA debt as % of GDP 104.87% - debt per citizen $57,028

I would call this a win for Russia, would you not?

No, look at the currency you used to denominate the debt in......

........if the US decided to pay off all it's foreign debt tomorrow we'd all be fecked.

Plus, if you look at the credit crunch Russian companies are enduring and add to that the haemorrhaging of capital (over $70 billion in Q4 2014 according to their own stats) and you can call it a win if you want, but given a choice where would rather move to - New York or Moscow?

woodrow wyatt · 15-02-2015 6:44pm

Russia debt $236 billion
USA debt $18,000 billion

Yep it looks looks like Russia is the is the country in trouble.

Jawgap · 15-02-2015 6:54pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Russia debt $236 billion
USA debt $18,000 billion

Yep it looks looks like Russia is the is the country in trouble.

Again, have a look at the currency it's denominated it. The US controls the dollar - if it wanted to it could pay off all it's debts tomorrow simply by printing more greenbacks. If Russia wanted to pay off it's debt it would have to buy those dollars and at current exchange rates it's not going to able to.

Also this time last year Russia had nearly half-a-trillion dollars in foreign reserves - in the last two quarters of 2014 it burned through 20% of that cash pile while the US, EU etc maintained their reserves.

US GDP is growing at 1.6/1.7% per qtr (even the EU growing a bit) - Russia's has fallen off a cliff in the last 18 months - and the next 12 months don't look so hot.

woodrow wyatt · 15-02-2015 7:02pm

15,170,450,680,049 rubles.
only put in dollars to make comparison easy.

Jawgap · 15-02-2015 7:05pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

15,170,450,680,049 rubles.
only put in dollars to make comparison easy.

Yes, and completely useless, because no one wants Roubles! If they had to go buy the dollars to pay of their debt they couldn't because pouring half a trillion roubles into the international markets would further devalue the currency meaning they'd need to pour more into any purchase, which would further devalue it.....

woodrow wyatt · 15-02-2015 7:46pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The US controls the dollar - if it wanted to it could pay off all it's debts tomorrow simply by printing more greenbacks. If Russia wanted to pay off it's debt it would have to buy those dollars and at current exchange rates it's not going to able to.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, and completely useless, because no one wants Roubles! If they had to go buy the dollars to pay of their debt they couldn't because pouring half a trillion roubles into the international markets would further devalue the currency meaning they'd need to pour more into any purchase, which would further devalue it.....

Weird logic, USA can print money to pay of debt but Russia can’t?
Who knows in what currency Russia is in debt? Maybe the ruble.
With the ruble crashing who is to say Russia is not selling its dollar reserves to buy rubies at a knock down price? Pay off all internal debt with a large discount..

Jawgap · 15-02-2015 8:08pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Weird logic, USA can print money to pay of debt but Russia can’t?
Who knows in what currency Russia is in debt? Maybe the ruble.
With the ruble crashing who is to say Russia is not selling its dollar reserves to buy rubies at a knock down price? Pay off all internal debt with a large discount..

The Rouble isn't a reserve currency - the dollar is and the Euro is. That's why debt is traded in those currencies. Russia can print all the Roubles it wants but it has to make payments in Dollars, meaning it has to get Dollars (earn foreign currency) to make sure they can make their payment schedule.

......and if they are paying down internal / domestic debt they are injecting money into their economy = expanding the money supply = price inflation = downward pressure on the Rouble's value.

woodrow wyatt · 17-02-2015 9:23pm

Today Debaltsevo fell to the Rebels, the Ukraine military and their US/NATO advisors where defeated.
The US/NATO is used to fighting lightly armed illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan instead of motivated, educated miners who are ex military, their tactics have consistently been defeated in Ukraine.
Do you still believe it would be a easy win for the the west/NATO in a real fight against a highly motivated professional army of either Russia or China?

Jawgap · 17-02-2015 9:30pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Today Debaltsevo fell to the Rebels, the Ukraine military and their US/NATO advisors where defeated.
The US/NATO is used to fighting lightly armed illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan instead of motivated, educated miners who are ex military, their tactics have consistently been defeated in Ukraine.
Do you still believe it would be a easy win for the the west/NATO in a real fight against a highly motivated professional army of either Russia or China?

You're completely missing the point.

Russia's objective is not to take over Ukraine, it is to prevent it falling into the EU and NATO spheres of influence. And, yes they are succeeding because as long as there is an active territorial dispute Ukraine can't join either organisation.

You can't extrapolate from that, that Russia would prevail over NATO - for a start if NATO brought their full air power to bear, it would be a completely different environment.

IrishTrajan · 17-02-2015 9:35pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Russia debt as % of GDP 11.17% - debt per citizen $1,651
USA debt as % of GDP 104.87% - debt per citizen $57,028

I would call this a win for Russia, would you not?

No, I wouldn't.

The reason U.S. debt is so high, is because they can afford to have it high. The better a country's credit rating, the lower the interest rate their bonds yield.

Basically, it's cheaper for the U.S. to borrow, so they borrow massive amounts of money at very low interest. Russia, on the other hand, has a worse credit rating, and so the cost of borrowing is higher for them, so they have low debt per person.

Russia's economy is also a one-trick pony, and the age of $100bbl is gone. Russia will run out of cash reserves this year, and if Western sanctions aren't lifted by then, it's tough times ahead for them.

IrishTrajan · 17-02-2015 9:41pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Today Debaltsevo fell to the Rebels, the Ukraine military and their US/NATO advisors where defeated.
The US/NATO is used to fighting lightly armed illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan instead of motivated, educated miners who are ex military, their tactics have consistently been defeated in Ukraine.
Do you still believe it would be a easy win for the the west/NATO in a real fight against a highly motivated professional army of either Russia or China?

Haha, dude what.

An easy win? No, because both of them have nuclear weapons and Russia's SAM system is quite decent. However, NATO would defeat Russia and China, make no mistake.

You know who is the largest air power in the world? The USAF. You know who is the second largest? The United States Navy. You know who is third, if account for logistical, training craft et al? The U.S. Army.

NATO is, quite simply, too powerful to lose a conventional war. They have high quality hardware in large quantities, they have high quality soldiers in large quantities.

The U.S. has eleven carriers, I don't think you understand the true magnitude of firepower those CBGs have. If the U.S. had to, they could probably just fly a couple bunker busters into the Three Gorges Dam, and cripple China with one strike.

The West isn't going to lose a conventional war any time soon.

woodrow wyatt · 17-02-2015 9:47pm

Tactical the west has taken a beaten in ukraine, yes or no?

IrishTrajan · 17-02-2015 9:49pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Tactical the west has taken a beaten in ukraine, yes or no?

No.

"Tactic" refers to a specific battlefield plan. Strategy refers to the plan for executing the war.

The West doesn't have combat troops in Ukraine, so it hasn't even been in a battle.

If the West did get involved with combat troops, you can bet your bottom dollar, the rebels' area of control would be shattered, and they'd have to resort to insurgency tactics.

woodrow wyatt · 17-02-2015 9:56pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If the West did get involved with combat troops, you can bet your bottom dollar, the rebels' area of control would be shattered, and they'd have to resort to insurgency tactics.

Western advisers in ukraine have consistently been bettered by russian advisers in in this conflict.
If western troops get involved officially expect russian support to go from covert to overt, imagine what the rebels could achieve armed to the teeth with top of the range weapons.

Jawgap · 17-02-2015 9:57pm

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Tactical the west has taken a beaten in ukraine, yes or no?

Russia might be winning the battle on the ground in Ukraine, but it's losing the war with the West......

Collapsing retail sales (worst since the fall of the USSR)
Inflation at 15% and forecast to go to 17% in the short term
Contracting wages
Banks needing recapitalisation to the tune of about $20 billion
Consumer confidence at low levels
Business activity at its lowest in 6 years
......and the government is running a primary deficit in its budget.

Putin Lets Consumers Feel Pain as Russian Slump Deepens: Economy

western military a paper tiger?

Comments