Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Breaking off this tangent which seems to be going nowhere...

Assumptions: Russia has no real strategic importance beyond its nuclear arsenal. Russia's nuclear arsenal is not sufficient to launch a crippling first strike. The US can not reliably launch a crippling first strike at any of the major nuclear powers (including Russia). The deaths of 10 million Americans and 290 million Americans are sufficiently bad to be equally deterring to us, particularly given our current lack of political will to handle even small numbers of American dead (see Iraq).

Therefore, our nuclear position re: Russia is essentially the same as our position re: France or China. Therefore, Russia is at most as globally meaningful as either of them, and probably less.

[RGBVideo]

Murdering political dissidents, threatening neighbors, human rights violations, etc.?

empty rhetoric with no substance upon closer inspection

Russia has tried co-operation with both EU and US. It has received nothing but knee-jerk opposition due to retarded cold war attitudes, much fueled by baby boomers who haven't progressed beyond "nation x is always bad, nation y is always good"-attitude in foreign policy. When faced with constantly escalating one-sided hostility from the west and southwest, seeking co-operation from south-east and east is obvious.

Assumptions: Russia has no real strategic importance beyond its nuclear arsenal. Russia's nuclear arsenal is not sufficient to launch a crippling first strike. The US can not reliably launch a crippling first strike at any of the major nuclear powers (including Russia). The deaths of 10 million Americans and 290 million Americans are sufficiently bad to be equally deterring to us, particularly given our current lack of political will to handle even small numbers of American dead (see Iraq).

Therefore, our nuclear position re: Russia is essentially the same as our position re: France or China. Therefore, Russia is at most as globally meaningful as either of them, and probably less.

Strike off "France" and I agree with everything you said there...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VJ
empty rhetoric with no substance upon closer inspection

Well enlighten me. Which of the statements lack substance and why? I'd be interested to hear the evidence that political dissidents aren't being murdered, human rights are respected, and neighbors aren't being threatened.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The fighters and bombers we'd see early enough to give warning, which puts us back in MAD territory. The ICBM's are the only system capable of crippling our ability to retaliate before we can retaliate (though even that's questionable). Thus Russia is only as strategically important as any other nuclear power with significant numbers of ICBM's.

Of course, you're right about their lack of crippling first strike ability. I completely misread your argument I don't think they've ever had crippling first strike capability.

However, Russia is the only country that can completely destroy the US, and the only one to which MAD applies.

[RGBVideo]

Well enlighten me. Which of the statements lack substance and why? I'd be interested to hear the evidence that political dissidents aren't being murdered, human rights are respected, and neighbors aren't being threatened.

all three

the burden of proof is on you

I'm not ignorant of the top stories of the last five years, but I've noticed that beyond hype none of them have had any concrete evidence, any sort of proof of Russia sliding into a dictatorship as the common wisdow goes.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see how MAD only works when they can "completely" destroy you. As I've asked, what's the standard for 'complete" destruction? 90% or 99% or 99.9%? In our current political climate I don't think we'd consider even 5% casaulties acceptable, and therefore MAD applies even to a country that can only kill 5% of our population.

xpost

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In our current political climate I don't think we'd consider even 5% casaulties acceptable

That's only because, I think, your current political climate doesn't consider nuclear conflict with a well-armed adversary as a likely scenario.

[DinoDoc]

VJ: Where did I say that they were either a dictatorship or in danger of becoming one? I don't know enough about the internal political situation to make any diffinative conclusions opn that specific front. I merely question the basis for nye's silly conclusion that Russia was "about to cross the aisle and join Europe" on the basis that the top stories of the last 5 years did happen.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
VJ: Where did I say that they were either a dictatorship or in danger of becoming one? I don't know enough about the internal political situation to make any diffinative conclusions opn that specific front. I merely question the basis for nye's silly conclusion that Russia was "about to cross the aisle and join Europe" on the basis that the top stories of the last 5 years did happen.

Nevermind then.

I think you're correct, Russian government doesn't seem to be seeking co-operation with Europe anymore. But Putin repeatedly tried to create stronger ties with USA and EU during his first 4 years. Seems to me, he gave up and moved on to next guys on the list -- China. When you're a regional player, you need to have some friends or you'll get surrounded and carved up before you notice anything's wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Breaking off this tangent which seems to be going nowhere...

Assumptions: Russia has no real strategic importance beyond its nuclear arsenal.

This is patently false. They still have the second-largest military budget in the world, after America. Their military technology in advanced weaponry is the second-best, too. They've got 10-15x the number of ICBMs as any other nuclear power save the US. And they can sell plenty of nasty, cheap conventional weapons, of which they have a large expertise, to anyone who's your enemy. They've got a vote on the UNSC. They can starve the EU of its gas.
Look at France: they're much less powerful than you, but they still get a solid say in African politics.

Therefore, our nuclear position re: Russia is essentially the same as our position re: France or China. Therefore, Russia is at most as globally meaningful as either of them, and probably less.

The problem is that most of the world's politics are not based on a nuclear dynamic.

[PuddlewatchHQ]

A lot of Russian technology is not worse then US tech.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


This is patently false. They still have the second-largest military budget in the world, after America. Their military technology in advanced weaponry is the second-best, too. They've got 10-15x the number of ICBMs as any other nuclear power save the US. And they can sell plenty of nasty, cheap conventional weapons, of which they have a large expertise, to anyone who's your enemy. They've got a vote on the UNSC. They can starve the EU of its gas.
Look at France: they're much less powerful than you, but they still get a solid say in African politics.




The problem is that most of the world's politics are not based on a nuclear dynamic.

Much of it is actually more innovative. And I'm pretty darn sure some of it is actually better in various ways.

Edited for langauge.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This is patently false. They still have the second-largest military budget in the world, after America.

It's obviously not getting them much. Their navy is being massively downsized (and let's face it, they just can't compete with the USN), their ground forces are ~400,000 (compare this to ~250,000 of the Bundeswehr, which are probably better trained and equipped, and to the ~2 million of the PLA).

Their military technology in advanced weaponry is the second-best, too.

The most expensive military in the world... and even with oil and gas Russia is pretty poor.

They've got 10-15x the number of ICBMs as any other nuclear power save the US.

I've established that this is irrelevant as long as those other powers can't be wiped out in a first strike.

And they can sell plenty of nasty, cheap conventional weapons, of which they have a large expertise, to anyone who's your enemy.

This makes them a problem to be solved more than an important strategic player. Especially since those countries could often just buy from - guess who - China or even France.

They've got a vote on the UNSC.

As do France, China, and the UK. Funny, I've been saying that Russia is at most as important as them.

They can starve the EU of its gas.

Oil is fungible, they can cause a temporary market shock at a huge cost to themselves.

Look at France: they're much less powerful than you, but they still get a solid say in African politics.

Funny, I've been saying that Russia is at most as important as France.

[Cort Haus]

Re: Why would a country feel threatened

Originally posted by pchang
by a missile defense system? Are they frightened by the loss of the ability to intimidate their neighbors by threatening to shoot missiles at them?

It's the missile defense system that removes the stability of deterrent. Which neighbours is Russia threatening to shoot missiles at?

[Cort Haus]

The attitude that boils down to : "we can push the Ruskies about however much we like - they're a busted flush " is insane, disrespectful, unrealistic and dangerous.

The level of ignorance about / glib dismissal of the good reasons Russia has to need to defend itself is disturbing. Old cold war prejudices have forced Russia towards China and India, and the eastwards march of NATO means that Russia is the one feeling intimidated. Likewise the glib, repeated dismissal of Russia's nuclear capability as "irrelevant" is staggering.

[Fake Boris]

I don't think you got the point Kuci, I was arguing that your vision of what it means to be significant is short-sighted. Militarily, Russia is more powerful than either France or China; geographically, they occupy a strategic position.

Your assertion about MAD is correct. The corollary, though, is not that Russia is insignificant; it's still the most significant conventional power, and as such it can hinder American policy (especially seeing how it feels threatened and thus is willing to).