Greece moves to Russia

Egginacup wrote: »

Anyway, leaving all that aside. Greece is moving further and further towards Moscow. If the IMF want to bleed Greece then I can't wait to see Russian cargo ships and planes frequenting Athens.

With what? Russia's economy is set to contract by 5% by the end of this year, their financial reserves run out in mid-2016.

What are the Russians going to do, sell barrels of ice from Siberia for Greece's thriving tourist industry? Lmao.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

With what? Russia's economy is set to contract by 5% by the end of this year, their financial reserves run out in mid-2016.

What are the Russians going to do, sell barrels of ice from Siberia for Greece's thriving tourist industry? Lmao.

Lmao indeed, you should be a fiction writer.

OP should just start a blog. Every thread he starts is a thinly veiled "Russia is great, **** the US/NATO/the West in general".

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Lmao indeed, you should be a fiction writer.

Yeah because Russia isn't going broke. Russia is a truly vibrant economy (^:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/04/01/russia-economic-report-33

The World Bank projects a negative growth outlook for Russia in 2015-2016, with the economy expected to contract by 3.8 percent in 2015 and modestly decline by 0.3 percent in 2016.

According to the report, consumption growth is expected to turn negative for the first time since 2009, eroded by declining real incomes and wages.

he main medium-term risk for Russia’s growth lies in the continued dearth of investment and lack of affordable credit, according to the report. In particular, less foreign direct investment could limit the transfer of innovation and technology that is critical to increasing Russia’s growth potential.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It always amuses me when people make statements about Russia you scream for proof and yet you're forever making statements like this about America.

Proofs it.

cerastes wrote: »

Maybe you should be more concerned and less flipant, its that kind of situation that forces countries to take extreme measures.

Maybe its completely unlikely, but what would Russian tanks rolling into a failed State beside the EU borders do for the global economy? and what would the resultant action be? nuke a country with its own nuclear force which it can respond with, or do we have to listen to the failed rhetoric from John Kerry about what other countries are doing wrong when its the US that has been going around the world on a destabilising jaunt?

They wouldn't. Greece is a part of NATO, and Putin himself has said that anyone who thinks Russia would attack NATO is living in a dream. Russian troops entering Greece would be a green light to the US to strike every Russian ally on the planet. And trust me, the US has the ability to neutralize every Russian ally in one-go. Even China doesn't stand much of a chance if the US decides to blast the Three Gorges Dam and blockade their food supplies (China relies heavily on food imports, since 1/3 of their land is desert nowadays).

cerastes wrote: »

The idea of country being pushed into a corner, regardless of what they are or are not doing right/wrong, encourages me little, especially when any accusers are neck deep in it themselves.

They pushed themselves into a corner. They lived outside their means, many of them refused to even pay taxes and have an enormous black market. If they had gotten on with austerity like sane people, their economy would be recovering rather than being overtaken in size by a country with half the population size.

Russia will not be rushing troops into Greece. They didn't rush them into Syria to protect an actual ally, I don't see them giving NATO a pretext to turn their allies into rubble and putting a couple hundred thousand soldiers in Ukraine.

cerastes wrote: »

what nonesense are you talking, I said a country on the EU's border, I never said Greece? how would they get the tanks across a border into Greece, and why would they, the Greeks seem to be aligning themselves with Russia from what I interpreted, NATO member or not.

Then why would you mention the EU's border at all? We're talking about Greece, not whether Russian troops in Ukraine are a good thing or not.

The Greeks can do what they want, it's likely a ploy to gain concessions from Germany. Even if the Greeks do join Russia, you really think they're going to prosper? They lose access to the markets of 500 million people. They lose access to the financial gargantuan that is the European Union (which is the largest economic power on the planet) and instead get access to the minnow that is Russia (which has a smaller economy than Italy)?

Yeah, best of luck to the Greeks, maybe this will work out for them... Or maybe it's a bad decision and will come back to bite them in the ass.

cerastes wrote: »

I was responding to your flippant attitude about a weakened Russia, it is not necessarily a good thing, which you seem to think its a great laugh, you talked of the state of their economy, Im suggesting they might have ways of their own of disrupting international trade if they chose, are you saying if Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border in more obvious presence that would not cause upsets globally? or might not get out of hand, because right or wrong, there is a history of countries backed into corners economically doing this.

Russia's economy is floundering, and yes this is a good thing. It is teaching Putin that you don't get to shoot down European civilians without consequences. Russia is not anywhere near a failed state.

If Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border, European weapons sales would sky rocket. We'd probably sell even more bandages and body bags to the Russians.

cerastes wrote: »

You think a stretched US could or has the right to attack anyone, what are they going to do? launch a pre-emtive nuclear war?

"stretched" Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The US has 10 aircraft carriers. You know who is the largest air force in the world? The USAF. You know who has the second? The United States Navy. You know what's the third (if you include helicopters and transport)? The United States Army. You know who has the largest fleet in the world? The US. The next largest in China, and it's barely a third of the size of the US'. The US spends more than any other nation on the planet, and has done for a while now. They have allies all across the globe, and are the only nation capable of striking anywhere in the world with sufficient force within 18 hours.

The US alone has enough firepower to turn a continent into dust and is the only nation with a large scale military industry (they produce so many tanks the US Army has just started giving them away, or trying to sell them to allies).

If you added up Russia and China's capabilities, the US still dwarfs them.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Russia's economy is floundering, and yes this is a good thing. It is teaching Putin that you don't get to shoot down European civilians without consequences. Russia is not anywhere near a failed state.

If Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border, European weapons sales would sky rocket. We'd probably sell even more bandages and body bags to the Russians.



"stretched" Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The US has 10 aircraft carriers. You know who is the largest air force in the world? The USAF. You know who has the second? The United States Navy. You know what's the third (if you include helicopters and transport)? The United States Army. You know who has the largest fleet in the world? The US. The next largest in China, and it's barely a third of the size of the US'. The US spends more than any other nation on the planet, and has done for a while now. They have allies all across the globe, and are the only nation capable of striking anywhere in the world with sufficient force within 18 hours.

The US alone has enough firepower to turn a continent into dust and is the only nation with a large scale military industry (they produce so many tanks the US Army has just started giving them away, or trying to sell them to allies).

If you added up Russia and China's capabilities, the US still dwarfs them.

Putin didnt order the shooting down of that aircraft and Id say it hasnt been proven who has, while it seems like the seperatists did, you no more know that than I do, and I dont for sure.

on your next point, you seem to not think China or Russia doesnt have 10 or 20 or a hundred anti ship missles, or have heard of asymmetric warfare, you dont need to attack an enemy at his strongest points but at his weakeast in enough places can degrade their will or capacity to fight.

Having the largest airforce is great and all, but if you think they can field all that in one go when they supposedly could barely field a few aircraft on 9/11, they you dont have a clue about aircraft maintenance or the monumental task in running all that, not to mention any potential weakensses in their aircraft designs and age, but really the impossiblity of that all being serviceable on any given day, or that the huge burden of running all that isnt a useful effort for any potential enemy as they sink under the mire of it all.
Personally I think China is in it for the long haul and is playing a waiting game, but to suggest either Russia or China isnt or couldnt be effective against the US, maybe you should present your self for any frontline service first.

Added to your list of tanks are a huge costs to go with it, they will be huge roadblocks and that is all if they do not have the resources to provide them with what they need to run, fuel, spares, ammunition,

they have allies across the globe, many of who would turn on them in a heart beat, others who will also serve their own interest first, when push comes to shove, Id be suprised if they were left wanting for allies and had to force themselves on their allies, certain nations may be a complete no go for them if they cannot resupply any forces far from their own borders, wouldnt fancy being stuck in Afghanistan or Tajikistan if that occurred.

You also seem to think all of which you mention is a good thing, you seem to be rejoicing in it, any decline at home where soldiers can compare their own families circumstances or just the concern of them or running out of ammunition on a mountainside in some far off land, for what?
Afghanistan and China have been around for a long time, the US and the west has sold itself out and it doesnt look like things are changing they will effect their (our) own downfall, or what? will they try stop that by threat of (and actually of) war

cerastes wrote: »

Putin didnt order the shooting down of that aircraft and Id say it hasnt been proven who has, while it seems like the seperatists did, you no more know that than I do, and I dont for sure.

on your next point, you seem to not think China or Russia doesnt have 10 or 20 or a hundred anti ship missles, or have heard of asymmetric warfare, you dont need to attack an enemy at his strongest points but at his weakeast in enough places can degrade their will or capacity to fight.

If you think ASMs are the end-all, be-all of naval fighting, you're sadly mistaken. The USN's air assets can strike China's land-based ASMs outside of those missiles operational range. Even China's vaunted "Anti-ship ballistic missile" is a farcical idea. The missile will move at top speed, and miss the target. Or it can slow down, and will be intercepted by US defences. This also doesn't account for the electronic and other physical countermeasures that the US has (THAAD, Patriot).

If China launches those ASCBMs, there's also no way to verify whether those weapons are carrying nukes or not (and the US has said any strike on their nuclear carriers will result in nuclear retaliation)

I don't think the Chinese are stupid enough to start a nuclear war with the US.

cerastes wrote: »

Having the largest airforce is great and all, but if you think they can field all that in one go when they supposedly could barely field a few aircraft on 9/11, they you dont have a clue about aircraft maintenance or the monumental task in running all that, not to mention any potential weakensses in their aircraft designs and age, but really the impossiblity of that all being serviceable on any given day, or that the huge burden of running all that isnt a useful effort for any potential enemy as they sink under the mire of it all.

Do you think the US just sits on its ass? At least half of the USN's air force is on deployment at any given time. Yes, there is routine on-ship maintenance, but the new Ford-class carriers will be able to launch 160 sorties a day for 30 days at a time. The US power projection vastly, vastly outstrips that of any other power on the planet. If you think the US can't field more aircraft than their competitors in a meaningful way, you're sadly misinformed on US military strategy. The US gathers its forces in massive quantities outside of the immediate theatre, and then strikes like Lucifer's Hammer.

Also, regarding that 9/11 point... You do know that there is a military build-up beforehand, right? There's a difference between a conventional build-up of materials and manpower, and a couple people hijacking a plane with no prior warning.

cerastes wrote: »

Personally I think China is in it for the long haul and is playing a waiting game, but to suggest either Russia or China isnt or couldnt be effective against the US, maybe you should present your self for any frontline service first.

You're an idiot if you think Russia or China could take the US in a conventional fight.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If you think ASMs are the end-all, be-all of naval fighting, you're sadly mistaken. The USN's air assets can strike China's land-based ASMs outside of those missiles operational range. Even China's vaunted "Anti-ship ballistic missile" is a farcical idea. The missile will move at top speed, and miss the target. Or it can slow down, and will be intercepted by US defences. This also doesn't account for the electronic and other physical countermeasures that the US has (THAAD, Patriot).

If China launches those ASCBMs, there's also no way to verify whether those weapons are carrying nukes or not (and the US has said any strike on their nuclear carriers will result in nuclear retaliation)

I don't think the Chinese are stupid enough to start a nuclear war with the US.



Do you think the US just sits on its ass? At least half of the USN's air force is on deployment at any given time. Yes, there is routine on-ship maintenance, but the new Ford-class carriers will be able to launch 160 sorties a day for 30 days at a time. The US power projection vastly, vastly outstrips that of any other power on the planet. If you think the US can't field more aircraft than their competitors in a meaningful way, you're sadly misinformed on US military strategy. The US gathers its forces in massive quantities outside of the immediate theatre, and then strikes like Lucifer's Hammer.

Also, regarding that 9/11 point... You do know that there is a military build-up beforehand, right? There's a difference between a conventional build-up of materials and manpower, and a couple people hijacking a plane with no prior warning.



You're an idiot if you think Russia or China could take the US in a conventional fight.

You seem to be having a wet dream warmongering fantasy, what are ya? 12?

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Another Walt

:pac: