BF2S Forums Russia: the REAL Threat to the World

Turquoise wrote:

dayarath wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i thought NATO was created for precisely this situation.  Well, mobilize EU....get rolling.

NATO is so divided all of the time... I doubt that anyone there would actually do anything unless Russia launched a full scale attack on mainland EU

Not to mention...  isn't Russia a partial member of NATO or something?  I thought they became part of it recently.

They'd never become a part of NATO, Russia doesn't like us and we don't like them.

they're not an "official" member anyway, we have a few agreements but that's it.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-08-14 15:54:57)

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

dayarath wrote:

NATO is so divided all of the time... I doubt that anyone there would actually do anything unless Russia launched a full scale attack on mainland EU

Not to mention...  isn't Russia a partial member of NATO or something?  I thought they became part of it recently.

i meant back in the day...but i see your point.  kick em out then

I'm cool with that.  Kick 'em out of the U.N. for that matter.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Yeah, and that would make China to do whatever they would want after / during the war occurs.  And Iran to do whatever they want.  And North Korea to drop the only nuke they have on South Korea.

Attacking Russia would be the dumbest thing any country could do, the same as attacking China, Iran, etc.

Then I suppose you would support us getting more involved in stationing troops in areas vulnerable to attacks by China or Russia, in order to discourage them from trying anything.

That would stretch forces for the different front lines there would be.

Best option is to defend yourself when the time is needed, not go out attacking everybody everywhere.

Well, I definitely agree with your second statement, but after seeing this whole mess with Georgia, I'm a bit more interventionist than before.  I just think we should keep troops in all the vulnerable areas as a reminder to countries like China and Russia that we are watching.  Granted, we'd have to get permission from the countries involved, of course.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

That would stretch forces for the different front lines there would be.

Best option is to defend yourself when the time is needed, not go out attacking everybody everywhere.

Well, I definitely agree with your second statement, but after seeing this whole mess with Georgia, I'm a bit more interventionist than before.  I just think we should keep troops in all the vulnerable areas as a reminder to countries like China and Russia that we are watching.  Granted, we'd have to get permission from the countries involved, of course.

Why risk troops when you can just plant a carrier and keep aircraft on patrol?

In my opinion, better to spend fuel than to spend lives.

We already do some of both.  However, boots on the ground equals more of a dominating presence (as demonstrated by our presence in South Korea).  Granted, I support us leaving certain countries (like South Korea actually).

It's all a matter of strategy.  We mistakenly thought Russia was past its Soviet leanings.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Not to mention...  isn't Russia a partial member of NATO or something?  I thought they became part of it recently.

i meant back in the day...but i see your point.  kick em out then

I'm cool with that.  Kick 'em out of the U.N. for that matter.

Actually, as I said in a previous thread, Im pretty sure its possible to put sanctions on Russia, as countries involved in the dispute are barred from voting. So if all that is correct, I think a vote from China, Britain, France, and the US on the Security Council, as well as a majority vote in the General Assembly would be enough to put sanctions on Russia.

Commie Killer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i meant back in the day...but i see your point.  kick em out then

I'm cool with that.  Kick 'em out of the U.N. for that matter.

Actually, as I said in a previous thread, Im pretty sure its possible to put sanctions on Russia, as countries involved in the dispute are barred from voting. So if all that is correct, I think a vote from China, Britain, France, and the US on the Security Council, as well as a majority vote in the General Assembly would be enough to put sanctions on Russia.

But China will probably side with Russia.

Turquoise wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm cool with that.  Kick 'em out of the U.N. for that matter.

Actually, as I said in a previous thread, Im pretty sure its possible to put sanctions on Russia, as countries involved in the dispute are barred from voting. So if all that is correct, I think a vote from China, Britain, France, and the US on the Security Council, as well as a majority vote in the General Assembly would be enough to put sanctions on Russia.

But China will probably side with Russia.

Yeah, they always hold the wild card. We dont hold much over them to pressure them anymore either.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

- China would not vote in favor.

- Great Britain has too much Russian exiles in the country for they to try anything, even a vote.  GB will stay quiet and still as long as it cans.

- France would vote in favor.

- US would vote in favor.

Russia has trading agreements with a shitload of countries around the world, so they would see consequences if such a vote passes.

Russia is in a nice untouchable place right now.

france takes the current seat as leaders of the EU, their vote will bring in alot of other countries I think.

Those russian immigrants didn't come into GB because they love Russia so much or am I wrong now

dayarath wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

- China would not vote in favor.

- Great Britain has too much Russian exiles in the country for they to try anything, even a vote.  GB will stay quiet and still as long as it cans.

- France would vote in favor.

- US would vote in favor.

Russia has trading agreements with a shitload of countries around the world, so they would see consequences if such a vote passes.

Russia is in a nice untouchable place right now.

france takes the current seat as leaders of the EU, their vote will bring in alot of other countries I think.

Those russian immigrants didn't come into GB because they love Russia so much or am I wrong now

You're not wrong, but Russia has no love for those immigrants either; they are exiles for a reason.

With the situation of the spy that was poisoned, the tensions between Russia and GB have risen a little bit, and a vote against Russia could very well make Russia drop the hammer on GB.

Turquoise wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You'll enjoy the coming future then, because we're getting back towards that.  When I said "place," I meant keeping them from invading our allies.  Also...  I would agree that we shouldn't be invading countries either unless they invade somebody else first.  We got put in our place by the troubles and expenses we've had from nation building Iraq.

Not to derail this, but what about invading countries to prevent a possible larger conflict. Of course are information that is virtually indisputable(I'm not talking Iraq here).

It's tricky...  but I see what you're saying.  Still, I think the 2nd Iraq War and the Vietnam War were both unnecessary.  Iraq wasn't a real threat to us, and Vietnam wasn't really worth defending.  Georgia is far more important in the long run.

I agree, while if properly executed, they could have also had great benefits, the reasons behind them weren't enough to warrant an invasion in Iraq's case, and the defensive installations in Vietnam's case. Vietnam is more understandable in my mind though, the whole containing communism theory, though the way it was implemented ruined the possibilities of a good outcome(if there is a such a thing). The cultural and internal political aspects behind it though...


Well forget it, back to Russia.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

jord wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

You're not wrong, but Russia has no love for those immigrants either; they are exiles for a reason.

With the situation of the spy that was poisoned, the tensions between Russia and GB have risen a little bit, and a vote against Russia could very well make Russia drop the hammer on GB.

The hammer consisting of?

Use your imagination, from trading cuts to even military pressure (and I don't mean troops on the ground, but more spying, etc.).

The reason why Russia don't do trading cuts with us is because we make them a lot of money which they need. Russia as a single country aren't in position to pressure us in any way. The UN can, NATO can. Russia can't because if they stop sending out the gas they stop getting that fat check.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

jord wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Use your imagination, from trading cuts to even military pressure (and I don't mean troops on the ground, but more spying, etc.).

The reason why Russia don't do trading cuts with us is because we make them a lot of money which they need. Russia as a single country aren't in position to pressure us in any way. The UN can, NATO can. Russia can't because if they stop sending out the gas they stop getting that fat check.

China is a good buyer for oil, so yes, there would be a difference, but not one that would kill Russia.

Militarily we're protected by Europe and would be the last ones to be attacked.

And what doesn't kill Russia... Doesn't make it any stronger.

oug wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Not to derail this, but what about invading countries to prevent a possible larger conflict. Of course are information that is virtually indisputable(I'm not talking Iraq here).

Example?

Nothing off the top of my head. There have been wars fought for good reasons, for example Kuwait and Afghanistan pops out in my memory.