Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Greece moves to Russia
Options
Comments
-
My question is where does India sit in all of this and what part does it have to play? They were traditionally friendly with Russia but seem to have growing bonds with the U.S.
India looks after its own sphere.
It sees China as a global rival, though they are amiable enough for the most part.
India was closer to Russia in the past, primarily for defence equipment, but things have soured a bit there as Russian military tech is struggling to deliver for India.
India has growing defence links with the west, primarily France, Israel & the US.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »India looks after its own sphere.
It sees China as a global rival, though they are amiable enough for the most part.
India was closer to Russia in the past, primarily for defence equipment, but things have soured a bit there as Russian military tech is struggling to deliver for India.
India has growing defence links with the west, primarily France, Israel & the US.
In the past the U.S. Was heavily involved in Pakistan using them to arm the afghans against the Russians, and so it took Pakistan's side in diplomatic disagreements to an extent. But with terrorism and Pakistan turning into somewhat of a failed state and India prospering the U.S. Has forged stronger ties and continues to do so. Perhaps it sees India as a balancer in the region to offset China and Russia. Israel of course sympathises with India on the issue of Islamic extremism so there is common ground there. Worryingly, relations between India and China seem frosty enough still.
There's a delicate balancing game going on in the region. And I think India has a part to play beyond just itself.0 -
It was you that was stating recently that for a country to achieve victory that they need not win outright,
In relation to how China might take the US? I never said it has to be a head to head contest, remember SunTzu was mentioned earlier, and fight to your strengths and an enemy's weaknesses too, how about the British Empire as an example, so exhausted by the "Great War" starting out as the preeminent world power, its superiority had waned by the end, supplanted by a superior economic and growing military strength/capability due to its economic might in the form of the US at the time.
Britain had always relied upon continental allies to provide the manpower for wars in Europe, because they themselves lacked it. Britain was a naval power and a financial power: during the Napoleonic Wars, Spain and France combined their navies and could only compete with a single British squadron.. During the Napoleonic Wars, rather than Britain putting armies into the field (though they did a few times: failed in the Low Countries initially, but were victorious in Spain and when they landed troops under Wellington).
Britain was only "supplanted" by the US during the second world war, when the US traded materials and loans for British ports. The US became the guarantor of the seas, which is when they replaced Britain as the pre-eminent power.The US could not afford a war with its benefactor, the Chinese could wage an economic war on the US (I admit I dont know much about economics but you are wrong to suggest history) and as little or much about economics, it seems that China might be able to dump whatever they hold of US assets in currency on the world market? Id really need help on whether thats an accurate assesment of it, but from what Ive gathered this will destroy the dollar and they will be selling those 10 aircraft carriers for scrap to pay for essentials, its pure speculation or anyones guess if States will ceced from the Union and strike it out on their own, but I wouldnt rule it out in such a crazy "what if" scenario world. So before any of those 500k missles reached or hit that dam, the consequences would be dire for the world, but the USA would be over outright too.
The great thing about the US dollar is that it isn't backed by anything but Saudi gold. China needs the US more than the US needs China. The US is self-sufficient in energy and resources, China needs foreign oil and food imports to survive. If the US wanted to, they could blockade the South China Sea and starve the Chinese out. The US dollar is the reserve currency, the only one that could come close would be the Euro, and the EU isn't as widespread in circulation.
"Pay for essentials", The US is self-sufficient in a great many resources, and their allies will cover more. With non-essential goods, it's just that the Chinese produce stuff like clothes and forks and plates because it's cheaper, but if push came to shove, the US could pull the rug from under them and just build the stuff themselves.
This whole "China owns the US" thing sounds like when people mock the US for having a high national debt whilst China doesn't.
Would an economic war between them hurt? Yes. Would it hurt the US the most? Nope.Agreed on the later points, its a shame you cant see your failings as you repeatedly criticise me for my lack of history knowledge and change tack when recounting the outcome of a major war and vary in your opinion on the shooting down of different airliners depending on who shot them down, the dead and their families on either side dont care who did it, I doubt either was intentional but thats small comfort to those on the receiving end.
There was no change of tactic. To achieve victory you must meet your strategic objectives. The US met their strategic objective, they won the Korean War.0 -
Corvus Maximus wrote: »There's absolutely no chance of western companies turning away from the massive Chinese market. China can also find all the precious elements it needs in the vast, mineral rich resources of Russia. So don't be surprised as China & Russia continue to forge a closer alliance. Last month both nations conducted a joint military exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean and they've been conducting joint Pacific drills since 2012. The Chinese navy operating so far from their home waters with the Russians. Was no doubt intended to send a strong political & military message to the West.
And Russia needs Western technology in order to get those resources. The Russian military also needed tugboats when they were in the English channel (they got stuck there by storms in the Atlantic, meanwhile the Irish Navy was operating helicopters in the storms and saving fishermen), and needed tugboats when they sat outside Australia's waters during the G20 summit.Corvus Maximus wrote: »As part of the BRIC nations, we will see a growing economic power block that is unrivaled. World power is shifting ease and the influence of America and it's dollar is waning. A currency that is not based on a tangible value/reality. The BRIC nations will have a gold backed currency based on a tangible reality and that's where its stability & strength will lie. China might want western consumers, but when it comes to strategic reserves and military alliances, the Chinese will fall in with their Russian counterparts. They have already established a much closer strategic energy, military and economic relationship that will only continue grow.
Er.. The BRICs don't even match the US in economic size, nevermind the EU and US and other strategic allies (Canada, Australia for example).
Russia and China can grow closer if they want, they still won't be capable of competing with the West for a long while.0 -
In the past the U.S. Was heavily involved in Pakistan using them to arm the afghans against the Russians, and so it took Pakistan's side in diplomatic disagreements to an extent. But with terrorism and Pakistan turning into somewhat of a failed state and India prospering the U.S. Has forged stronger ties and continues to do so. Perhaps it sees India as a balancer in the region to offset China and Russia. Israel of course sympathises with India on the issue of Islamic extremism so there is common ground there. Worryingly, relations between India and China seem frosty enough still.
There's a delicate balancing game going on in the region. And I think India has a part to play beyond just itself.
Definitely. It seems that Russia and the US are both trying to court India, who is the closest competitor to China in the region. The Russians were the ones who helped India with is nuclear program, and they're currently developing the Pak-Fa together (well, India was giving Russia money but has recently bought the Dassault Rafale), but the US is also aiding with naval designs (India is building aircraft carriers, and wants to operate 3 in total [1 for each coast, one in reserve]) and the electromagnetic catapult (the US have only put them on the Fords, I think).
I don't think India will be a true competitor to China, not on its own, but it might provide enough of a political clout to SEA to keep China hemmed in.0 -
Advertisement
-
Greece are looking for some change for the hostel.0
-
Corvus Maximus wrote: »Similarly, anyone who thinks the US and the West could take Russia or China. Should probably also be viewed as an equal idiot. Russia like the US, has the military capability of rendering all life on Earth extinct. So it's very likely that nobody would be taking anybody and such talk is nothing more that my dad could beat your dad type childish nonsense.
There was never enough nukes to threaten all life on earth. There was, however, enough nukes to put a massive dent in it and leave both nations as little more than rubble, but places like Australia, Africa and South America would likely not incur mass casualties.
Regardless, this is why I specified conventional war when I said the US could take on Russia and China. Which it can.0 -
I'll put it a simpler way.
I don't think the other post could have been clearer or simpler to understand. China and Russia have ever strengthening ties on every level. Russia might have economic ties with the West, but strategically and military, they align with Russia. And those ties will grow along with the BRIC nations as the US dollar becomes irrelevant.There's the McDonalds analogy. No two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war. The reason isn't McDonalds. It's because when there's two countries like that they have enough economic ties that the a isn't worth it.
Complete nonsense. Strange how your McDonalds analogy, has failed to prevent a proxy war from raging between Russia and the Ukraine.0 -
I don't think the other post could have been clearer or simpler to understand. China and Russia have ever strengthening ties on every level. Russia might have economic ties with the West, but strategically and military, they align with Russia. And those ties will grow along with the BRIC nations as the US dollar becomes irrelevant.
The BRICs don't match the US in size, nor the EU. I find it increasingly unlikely that Brazil, for instance, will alienate France (whom they have incredibly close military ties with) in favour of China, whom merely wants their resources.
The belief that BRICs will put up a unified front against the US is nonsense, India and Brazil benefit from Western hegemony because it keeps their rivals (China/Pakistan and Argentina, respectively) from actually threatening their position. It is a much more complex world than you give it credit for.Complete nonsense. Strange how your McDonalds analogy, has failed to prevent a proxy war from raging between Russia and the Ukraine.
Because Ukraine is of greater strategic importance to Russia than many other countries, and Russia believes they can pull Ukraine back into its sphere of influence (or at least stop it from joining the EU/NATO) through force.0 -
as the US dollar becomes irrelevant.
The anti-Westerners always bang on about this.
It's a shill-trope at this stage.
This image linked below is the distribution of global reserve currencies as used by the whole planet.... I wouldn't hold my breath about the dollars days being numbered.... No wait... Do hold your breath!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Global_Reserve_Currencies.png0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think the other post could have been clearer or simpler to understand. China and Russia have ever strengthening ties on every level. Russia might have economic ties with the West, but strategically and military, they align with Russia. And those ties will grow along with the BRIC nations as the US dollar becomes irrelevant.
Complete nonsense. Strange how your McDonalds analogy, has failed to prevent a proxy war from raging between Russia and the Ukraine.
1) Russia and Ukraine aren't at war.
2) Russia closed all the McDonalds. So even if they go to war now, it's not going to break the rules:)
And the analogy still stands. Economically China and the US will never weaken ties. Their economies are too intertwined. And the ties that bond them are stronger than any of the ties that link China to Russia. Remember, Russia is a very small global player.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »There was never enough nukes to threaten all life on earth. There was, however, enough nukes to put a massive dent in it and leave both nations as little more than rubble, but places like Australia, Africa and South America would likely not incur mass casualties.
Regardless, this is why I specified conventional war when I said the US could take on Russia and China. Which it can.
This is moronic. If these countries were losing and badly losing a conventional war it's not unthinkable that they wouldnt resort to nukes out of desperation even with MAD. All it takes is one general/commander or a group of over zealous missile operators to start a nuclear exchange and with command and control facilities being one of the first casualties of a losing war anything can happen.
No one is going to war against the U.S. but their influence is waning a little and they could be economically ground down over time. Most great empires destroy themselves from, within long before the killing blow is landed by outside forces.0 -
And the analogy still stands. Economically China and the US will never weaken ties. Their economies are too intertwined. And the ties that bond them are stronger than any of the ties that link China to Russia. Remember, Russia is a very small global player.
never say never, the US has defence agreements with many countries that are hostile to China
and I'm not sure if you could call Russia a small global player0 -
This is moronic. If these countries were losing and badly losing a conventional war it's not unthinkable that they wouldnt resort to nukes out of desperation even with MAD. All it takes is one general/commander or a group of over zealous missile operators to start a nuclear exchange and with command and control facilities being one of the first casualties of a losing war anything can happen.
They can, but Russia has only ever specified they will fight with nuclear weapons when the existence and territorial integrity of the State is threatened. That's why nobody is saying to invade Russia, but the US can neutralize Russia's air assets (the only assets that matter, since Russia's fleet is rusted and army is in tatters)No one is going to war against the U.S. but their influence is waning a little and they could be economically ground down over time. Most great empires destroy themselves from, within long before the killing blow is landed by outside forces.
The US thrives on being the first and being able to change. China is the only real nation that could compete with the US, and that is talking ~30 years down the line. The US has 300 million people and the EU has 500 million. Combined, they have enough political and economic clout to remain the dominant powers for decades.
This is also assuming that the US hasn't rigged the game to favour its own survival. The World Bank, the IMF... These are all US dominated institutions, which is why the Russians want their New Development Bank and why China wants its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (the latter is the one likely to be relatively successful).
China might become a competitor with the US or EU, maybe even Brazil, but China can not compete with the US and EU, and Brazil is more interested in its own backyard than trying to surge against US dominance. To think the BRICs (where two members already hate each other and regularly have military skirmishes) are going to present a united front against the West is farcical.0 -
never say never, the US has defence agreements with many countries that are hostile to China
and I'm not sure if you could call Russia a small global player
It's economy is now the size of Spains.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12?r=US0 -
never say never, the US has defence agreements with many countries that are hostile to China
And China has massive investments in those countries. Many SEA nations rely upon Chinese money in order to maintain their economic growth in order to counter Chinese money.and I'm not sure if you could call Russia a small global player
They are not on the same level as the EU, US or China. Russia is a regional player (they are the pre-eminent force in Central Asia, though China-Pakistan-India-Iran are all inching in to try and gain influence) in the countries they border, but Russia itself lacks any real ability to influence global affairs.
Economically, they're smaller than Italy, and their soft power projection is dead in the water from sanctions and oil prices. Their hard power is dead in the water from decades of neglect and poor design (even the new Armata broke down, despite having only minor modifications in electronic systems and having the design [2 people in front] ripped from American plans). Yes, Russia is a regional power, but when you're competing with countries like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, it isn't exactly hard.0 -
And the ties that bond them are stronger than any of the ties that link China to Russia. Remember, Russia is a very small global player.
6-of-1 I think.
Once China realised that the US & the West had no interest in encouraging democracy in China, the communist regime felt much more at ease.
The sino-Russian relationship is heavily in China's favour.
Russia takes on the role of useful idiot for China.
Dictatorships tend to stick together, so Beijing is happy to allow Russia to throw some gas its way for practically nothing (cos it doesn't need it), pose for photos, have a joint naval exercise & send the bots into orgasmic bliss thinking the democratic/capitalist world is about to fall.
Other than resisting China's desired annexation of the entire south China sea, the Sino-US relationship is pretty good on the face of it.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »They can, but Russia has only ever specified they will fight with nuclear weapons when the existence and territorial integrity of the State is threatened. That's why nobody is saying to invade Russia, but the US can neutralize Russia's air assets (the only assets that matter, since Russia's fleet is rusted and army is in tatters)
you're making that sound far too easy, the Russian air force and air defence system would be very hard to knock out
also its true that their navy has shrank but they can still cause serious problems with their submarines
since Putin came to power he has built up the army and since the problems in the Ukraine they are again increasing the defence budget0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »There was never enough nukes to threaten all life on earth. There was, however, enough nukes to put a massive dent in it and leave both nations as little more than rubble, but places like Australia, Africa and South America would likely not incur mass casualties.
I don't know what you're smoking, but have you any clue about what a single modern nuclear missile can do and how many warheads they carry? Have you no idea of the concept of strategic targeting? You seriously think Australia and South America would not be targeted. An all out nuclear war would render human life extinct and a nuclear winter would finish the few survivors off.IrishTrajan wrote: »Regardless, this is why I specified conventional war when I said the US could take on Russia and China. Which it can.
Conventional war? Well if you want to engage in this irrelevant nonsense, then consider this. A couple of Black Hawks were shot down in Somali back in 1993 and the American public couldn't stomach it. The US had it's asses kicked by a bunch of insurgents in Iraq. Then we have the Taliban who are stronger than ever in Afghanistan. The Americans don't like a bloody nose and boy would it be bloodied if they thought they could take on Russia or China in conventional warfare.IrishTrajan wrote: »The BRICs don't match the US in size, nor the EU. I find it increasingly unlikely that Brazil, for instance, will alienate France (whom they have incredibly close military ties with) in favour of China, whom merely wants their resources.
You clearly have no understanding of the BRIC nations project. It is still a growing economic block. The US dollar is increasingly worthless, the BRIC nations will eventually establish a currency based up real value - gold value. When the flick is finally switched and the dollar is discarded, the US financial system will collapse.
Western fanboys don't seem to understand that the balance of world power is moving east. They are deluded by some sort of Western superiority complex. Of course their is nothing more dangerous than a dying empire and the American empire is in its death throes. An all consuming need to dominate & control, usually overcomes such empires in it's final stages.
And that's why we have the Americans bugging Merkel's phone and spying on their own allies & people. It's desperate paranoia and an attempt to maintain dominance & control. Thankfully, short of starting a war, they can't turn back the tide. Asia will be become the epicenter of global power and the days of American led warfare and hypocrisy will thankfully be behind us.
Anyway, based on what I've read, I'm out. You cannot logic with the illogical.0 -
It's economy is now the size of Spains.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12?r=US
I know
but they are still a global player, they are a nuclear power they have a seat on the UN security council, any country having problems with the US generally looks to Russia for help0 -
Advertisement
-
Probably the vast majority of economists nowadays - even the IMF's research division - view austerity as a massive failure; austerity destroys a countries GDP by shrinking the whole economy, making their 'public debt to GDP' and 'deficit vs GDP' worse, the more austerity you do - and because it makes the deficit and public debt worse, the countries that agree to it are told to undergo even more austerity.IrishTrajan wrote: »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.
Agreeing to austerity is agreeing to literally destroy/ruin a huge portion of your economy - it was never a way out for any country, it is a way of destroying their economies even further.
It's depressing that people still believe - on a mass scale - the austerity narrative, and engage in victim-blaming against Greece, without realizing that Greece are being told to effectively destroy their economy and hold it down in a depressed condition for decades.0 -
the Russian air force and air defence system would be very hard to knock out
Only because the country is so large fighter jests don't have the fuel to traverse her!
In terms of numbers & capability, Russia's air force is OK, better than Europe, but much weaker than the US.
Indeed, it was always their strength.also its true that their navy has shrank but they can still cause serious problems with their submarines
They still have 40-ish serviceable subs.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »Only because the country is so large fighter jests don't have the fuel to traverse her!
its not just that, the Russians have excellent anti aircraft missiles, they can shoot down anything in NATO/US air force including the "stealth aircraft"
the latest Russian fighter jets may be better than the latest US fighters0 -
Personally, I view Greece's improved relations with Russia, as just a political move to try and bolster their negotiating position with Europe and their creditors - with economic benefits (oil pipeline and such) just being secondary to that.I agree. They are being far too harsh on Greece. It is obvious as the day is long that Greece is a special case, they are unhealthy and need treatment, not discipline. The whole point of the EU project was that we'd all work together to help each other out, specifically to prevent European countries from falling out. Germany's robotic-ness is yet again causing problems.
I can see why Greece might look outside for help, but why Russia? What affiliations do they have?
So, they're not going to suddenly make a positive turn towards greater economic integration with Russia, just trying to bolster their negotiation position - and, since their overall negotiation position is incredibly bad, it's not really providing them with much/any benefit (but is still worth doing, especially if they get to negotiate projects like the oil pipeline, that are economically beneficial).
The other side to it, is that the increased sanctions with Russia from the EU, mean that the EU is voluntarily agreeing to shrink the Russia-dependent portions of the EU economy, that are affected by sanctions - this is something Greece want to avoid, given their economic condition, so it makes sense to try and keep relations with Russia for this reason too.0 -
I don't know what you're smoking, but have you any clue about what a single modern nuclear missile can do and how many warheads they carry? Have you no idea of the concept of strategic targeting? You seriously think Australia and South America would not be targeted. An all out nuclear war would render human life extinct and a nuclear winter would finish the few survivors off.
And you think every nuke in existence is a strategic nuke aimed at cities? No. There are a great many tactical nukes designed for knocking out military installations and supply depots in short-range theatres. If you think a single strategic nuke can flatten a city, you're also sadly mistaken. In fact, most strategic nukes are pointed at the other person's strategic nukes, and vice-versa. The US designed their silos to resist strikes from nuclear attack, the Soviets not so much.Conventional war? Well if you want to engage in this irrelevant nonsense, then consider this. A couple of Black Hawks were shot down in Somali back in 1993 and the American public couldn't stomach it. The US had it's asses kicked by a bunch of insurgents in Iraq. Then we have the Taliban who are stronger than ever in Afghanistan. The Americans don't like a bloody nose and boy would it be bloodied if they thought they could take on Russia or China in conventional warfare.
Asymmetric warfare != conventional warfare. And I don't see how China or Russia would be fighting asymmetrically when the US wouldn't be deploying ground troops. The only thing the US needs to win is blockade China's ports and to neutralize their air assets, possibly blowing up the Three Gorges Dam and flooding a great deal of land.You clearly have no understanding of the BRIC nations project. It is still a growing economic block. The US dollar is increasingly worthless, the BRIC nations will eventually establish a currency based up real value - gold value. When the flick is finally switched and the dollar is discarded, the US financial system will collapse.
You have no idea how the world financial system works, do you? This reminds me of those stories of us getting rid of the euro and going back to the punt back in 2012. "Summer 2013, the EU is gonna be done!"Western fanboys don't seem to understand that the balance of world power is moving east. They are deluded by some sort of Western superiority complex. Of course their is nothing more dangerous than a dying empire and the American empire is in its death throes. An all consuming need to dominate & control, usually overcomes such empires in it's final stages.
And you are deluded by your anti-Western bias. You can touch yourself to dreams of Russia and China standing up to the US, but the reality is, nobody has the military capacity that the US does. The US has built its logistic base over decades. Even if the EU up and announced mass remilitarization tomorrow, it would take three to four decades to reach the US' level.And that's why we have the Americans bugging Merkel's phone and spying on their own allies & people. It's desperate paranoia and an attempt to maintain dominance & control. Thankfully, short of starting a war, they can't turn back the tide. Asia will be become the epicenter of global power and the days of American led warfare and hypocrisy will thankfully be behind us.
Everyone spies on everyone, you dip. The French have done more damage to the German economy through industrial espionage than the Russians or the Chinese. The Germans are spying on their own companies for the US, and spying on other European companies. The Five Eyes deliberately spy on each other to circumvent national procedures on domestic espionage.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Probably the vast majority of economists nowadays - even the IMF's research division - view austerity as a massive failure; austerity destroys a countries GDP by shrinking the whole economy, making their 'public debt to GDP' and 'deficit vs GDP' worse, the more austerity you do - and because it makes the deficit and public debt worse, the countries that agree to it are told to undergo even more austerity.
Agreeing to austerity is agreeing to literally destroy/ruin a huge portion of your economy - it was never a way out for any country, it is a way of destroying their economies even further.
It's depressing that people still believe - on a mass scale - the austerity narrative, and engage in victim-blaming against Greece, without realizing that Greece are being told to effectively destroy their economy and hold it down in a depressed condition for decades.
I agree with you, but you can't only apply the Keynesian theory to the bust cycle. The Greeks didn't maintain reserves of cash (Russia has, which is why their economy isn't even smaller), a lot of them didn't even pay taxes on their earnings and the Government had to tax the ever-loving bejaysus out of their energy suppliers to make up for lost revenue.
Ireland and Greece were in much the same predicament, Ireland chose austerity and Greece fought it every step of the way. Ireland's economy is now larger in size than Greece's despite having half the people.0 -
Some good stuff alright, if unproven.its not just that, the Russians have excellent anti aircraft missiles,They can shoot down anything in NATO/US air force including the "stealth aircraft"
Like what?
How many NATO aircraft have Russia shot down?..... rounded to the nearest zero!
That's right.... zero.
I'd be more than wary of what the bots & shills spout about that.... Most of it is actually Iranian state propaganda.
The 'BUK/Grizzly' family of SAMs are proven to be useless against modern jets.
Good for shooting down Malaysian passenger jets, but that's it.
The much fabled S-300 has been in NATO service for years & has been trained against extensively.
Its a step up, but like all radars, succeptable to physics (the s300 is useless against threats under 2,000m)
The S400 is too big, too heavy & too few to make a difference.... and again, unproven.the latest Russian fighter jets may be better than the latest US fighters
Says no one in the world outside the Kremlin.
Their much vaunted PAK-FA is decades from operational capability & has been aggressively scaled back due to cost & technical problems.
And just ask India about regrets in purchasing Russian jets.... New Delhi has pulled the plug there in favour of planes from Dassault in France.0 -
you're making that sound far too easy, the Russian air force and air defence system would be very hard to knock out
also its true that their navy has shrank but they can still cause serious problems with their submarines
since Putin came to power he has built up the army and since the problems in the Ukraine they are again increasing the defence budget
The US navy was designed to target Soviet Russia's submarines under the Arctic, and the US has a great deal more submarines (in much better condition too). Yes, the Russians have serviceable submarines, but they do not have the infrastructure to maintain them in a war-setting, not since they lost Ukraine and their production lines closed up. That is why Putin is spending more and more on defence, to try and revitalize their industry.its not just that, the Russians have excellent anti aircraft missiles, they can shoot down anything in NATO/US air force including the "stealth aircraft"
the latest Russian fighter jets may be better than the latest US fighters
No, they can't. The Radar-Cross Section of the F22 and F35 is such that most air assets will only see them from 20km away, despite being capable of hitting with 85%+ accuracy at 180km.
Also, if I recall correctly, only Moscow is defended by S400/500 batteries, and possibly their ICBM silos, but a great many of their assets do not have the level of protection.
Russia can't even afford to produce their latest fighters, and nor are they on the same level as the US. Russia has ever had problems with engine design. For instance: in the Armata, they are still using an X-block engine which is rather more complex and prone to failure/harder to maintain. That is likely why that Armata failed in the Victory Day rehearsals parade.
Like I said, Russia's industry was neglected for decades, and won't be coming back to compete with the US any time soon, considering Ukraine was their source of construction for many things (such as their aircraft carriers, submarines' engines).0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Personally, I view Greece's improved relations with Russia, as just a political move to try and bolster their negotiating position with Europe
The summit to renew the Putin regime sanctions is at the end of the month.
It could be Greece's last card.0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »Personally, I view Greece's improved relations with Russia, as just a political move to try and bolster their negotiating position with Europe and their creditors - with economic benefits (oil pipeline and such) just being secondary to that.
So, they're not going to suddenly make a positive turn towards greater economic integration with Russia, just trying to bolster their negotiation position - and, since their overall negotiation position is incredibly bad, it's not really providing them with much/any benefit (but is still worth doing, especially if they get to negotiate projects like the oil pipeline, that are economically beneficial).
The other side to it, is that the increased sanctions with Russia from the EU, mean that the EU is voluntarily agreeing to shrink the Russia-dependent portions of the EU economy, that are affected by sanctions - this is something Greece want to avoid, given their economic condition, so it makes sense to try and keep relations with Russia for this reason too.
On that we agree, I think I stated that earlier.0
Advertisement