State TV says Russia could turn US to 'radioactive ash'.

lonegurkha:

Yeah they could turn the US into ash, and we can turn them to ash...so what's their point?

Obviously, the point is, they have the ability and capacity to turn American cities into radioactive ash...duh! Of course, this is not something the world has only just found out, it has known it since the 1950s.

Fact is, you don't have to use nukes to crush America, a conventional war that used up much of its conventional weaponry would weaken America to the point where mainland invasion could succeed. Obviously, America would resort to nukes to ensure that wouldn't happen, but in doing so, it would invite wholescale destruction beyond the range of recovery. Other countries not involved, but waiting in the wings like vultures, would then be able to walk in and pick at America's carcass.

reply to post by elysiumfire


I wonder if ol' Russia understands how serious America is, now that the endgame is in sight. The U.S. hasn't been building bases all over the world for no reason... and no it's not to bring democracy and stability to the world.
All that's in the way is China and Russia. After them, the world will be one.

Phage
reply to post by la2

 

A pissing match? Really?

Not sure where you get those numbers, currently it seems the US debt is more like 75% of GDP which is still higher than that of Russia but it is, after all, hard to get credit when your income sucks. Business tends to invest in stronger economies and investment is, after all, where debt comes from, right?

Not sure of your point about defense spending though:
U.S. : 682 billion (4.4% of GDP)
Russia : 91 billion (4.4% of GDP)
en.wikipedia.org...

That percentage is public debt to gdp ratio. The total debt to gdp ratio is over 100%.

On December 12, 2013, debt held by the public was approximately $12.312 trillion or about 73% of Q3 2013 GDP[5][6] Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.9 trillion (29%), giving a combined total public debt of $17.226 trillion or over 100% GDP.[7] As of January 2013, $5 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People's Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.[8]

National debt of the United States

So I guess depending on how you want to spin things, you two are both right.

Revolution9

Phage is right! The figures speak!

Yes, true.

But they also speak in favor of Russia. I don't understand why so many people in here portray the U.S. as an healthy economy and, mostly by indirect suggestion, that Russia is still a post-Soviet-fall weak economy.

That couldn't be more inaccurate.

If Russia was half of the economy some here at ATS seem to portray it is, the whole west wouldn't be so reluctant to punish Russia for Crimea.

Not only that, but Russia is making moves that will, in the short/medium-term, shift their economic goals from Europe and the West, to the East.

They are steadily increasing their economic and trade relations with countries like China, and all over the rest of the Eastern part of the world. This is happening even though some countries in Europe are 100% dependent on Russia for their gas and energetic supplies. 100%! Germany - who is the major economic power in Europe at the moment - is 50% dependent on Russia for fuel.

That is not a weak economy by any definition.

The U.S. on the other hand, continues to pretend that the word "debt" doesn't exist.

The U.S is by no means finished.

No, but it's also very far away from the super-power it was until the late 90's.

I would say the U.S is in a much better financial situation now than it used to be.

Depends on the period you are referring to. Post WW2? Not even by a long shot. Post 2008 crisis? Yes, a bit... But the economic problems that caused it are still around, so... I wouldn't be all that optimistic.

The U.S is indeed the single strongest power in our world.

That depends on who you ask.

Stretching your military and political influence across the whole globe does have it's costs. If you can't have an economy or industry capable of massively feeding those expenses, then it's a matter of time until it collapses.

People like to day-dream about U.S. military forces leaving recently occupied countries, that it's all because we are evolving and becoming more peaceful and realizing that war is not the correct path...

Bullsh......

They are retreating because the logistic cost was just too heavy to maintain without losing vital defense capabilities in other priority places like Asia or Europe. That's the whole reason why private security companies are popping up like wild mushrooms...

It was very sweet when Europe was so weak that it depended on NATO (US) for defense, and that allowed the US to put a power blanket over Europe, but it has backfired.

Most NATO European countries got so used to peace and US defense warm love, that if the US is unable to move their military to Europe - like say, a Russian massive all-out war - most of them would fall within days. It would be even worst than the Blitzkrieg by Hitler that started WWII...

Missile defenses and anti-nuclear technology, yeah... Awesome. What are they supposed to do if Russia uses conventional warfare? Is the West going to use nuclear missiles anyway?

People need to wake up and face the reality... The lack of a respectable foe (due to USSR collapse) made most countries weak and vulnerable like they never were before.

Now its power is very much on the world stage as the leading act and not an isolated state like it used to be.

I disagree. I believe it's the opposite. The US used to be the defining force and diplomatic engine of the whole West. You can remember this by watching US action during the mid-80's and 90's.

However, mostly due to the constant controversial conflicts that the US has gotten involved in, there are a lot of governments around the World - who you would assume to kiss uncle Sam's hand in all matters - turning their backs and making their own decisions, or simply not siding with either side, instead of being pro-West.

Examples? China and India on this whole Crimea mess. They basically gave the middle finger to the West.

We've all been through a bad patch and we are on the mend is what the current economic forecasters are saying. We also have learned a few lessons about boom and bust I hope (though I doubt).

Do you want me to be brutally honest?

The US is going through what the USSR went through in the late 90's, culminating in the Berlin wall collapse. What should worry people is that Russia is on the rise, and the US is on the downfall.

I have no doubts the US will bounce back, but it's not tomorrow, nor next month. Not with trillions of debt and a failed economic system continuing to pile up...

gladtobehere

State TV says Russia could turn US to 'radioactive ash'.

What is keeping them?

If they nuke Washington D.C. then 95% of our problem will be over, just make sure Congress is in session and the Prez is 'not' on another vacation - What he taking a vacation from I can't fathom - he doesn't do spit!

reply to post by stumason

Your analogy falls flat at the first test - To be an accurate comparison, you'd have to say "This is the same as the US invading Mexico, then bussing in loads of Americans to shore up the referendum and then staging a rushed and highly suspect vote on whether they wanted to join the US, all while American soldiers patrol the streets."

You forgot the part where some neo-nazi mob violently overthrew the elected mexican government first.

State TV says Russia could turn US to 'radioactive ash'.

Political propaganda.

Umm,sounds like the North Korean propaganda.

The level of poverty?

gladtobehere

You know, that would make one helluv an avatar

On a side note:



The more things change the more they stay the same.

reply to post by Flatcoat


The internal affairs of another country have little to do with another, just like the affairs of the ukraine had nothing to do with Russia, so why send in the troops?

And why the blanket statement "neo-nazi" mob? Yes, some of the protesters were right-wing, but that is actually quite normal in Eastern Europe where "fascists" are far more common than in the West. That said, out of the many tens's of thousands of protesters, very few could be described as "fascists" and many were ordinary citizens wanting a change.

reply to post by stumason

And why the blanket statement "neo-nazi" mob? Yes, some of the protesters were right-wing, but that is actually quite normal in Eastern Europe where "fascists" are far more common than in the West. That said, out of the many tens's of thousands of protesters, very few could be described as "fascists" and many were ordinary citizens wanting a change.

I'm not disputing this at all. The problem is that they were the one's stirring up most of the trouble. And it appears as though the Svoboda Party has occupied most of the top positions, fully backed by the west, and without being elected.

reply to post by Flatcoat


That particular party represents over 10% of the national vote, so it's not exactly a fringe party and was, up until recently, in coalition with some more centrist parties to form the Opposition in Parliament, which held a majority. The former President was quite happy to ignore constitutional laws to by-bass Parliaments approval on many matters as well, so you can understand why the uprising started.

Now, according to what I can find about party affiliations of the interim Cabinet, only 4 members (Andriy Mokhnyk - Ecology Minister, Ihor Shvaika - Agriculture Minister, Ihor Tenyukh - Minister of Defence and Oleksandr Sych - One of 3 Vice PM's) are members of this party.

It's also worth stating that every one of them, aside from the Defence Minister who is a former Admiral of the Navy, were elected to Parliament in 2012, so describing a Government which has the backing of the majority of the Parliament, which is the only body which approves the Cabinet (not the people) as unelected is misleading at best. The parties in power at the moment have arguably more support than the former Government could have ever hoped for.

Agent_USA_Supporter

Phage

How differently would an Republican NeoCon handled it? Threat Putin With Nukes and Threats and treat Russia as a Foe and while showing the public that how Saudi Arabia is an ally of the west?

Were you alive when Ronald Reagan was president? Sure does not seem like it. A good president of the U.S. would have made them pay dearly by taking something dear to them (like Syria) or sent in a few carrier battle groups to show that we are really pissed and will not have these Russian games of annexing someone else s property. The Russians nearly always back down or talk themselves into common sense when military might is put in front of them.

They really know now its a fight they can not win but they are just taking advantage of the seriously weak and traitorous leadership we have today. If the U.S. did exactly what they did to Saddam in 1991 by sending a clear message that they would be forced out of Crimea then they would have left. Bush Sr. would have built a coalition of nations condemning Russia with serious painful repercussions.

Sending two fighter squadrons to Poland is not going to scare Russia because they see that is weak. Send over 100 fighters to the front line in many different locations and they will seriously re-think their plans. This is what Sara Palin meant, You have the big stick so they do not want to mess with the U.S., if the Russians think we are very serious then they will stand down.

stumason
reply to post by alienreality

 

It's all very well hating on Obama, for whatever you reasons, but you had a bit of a dipstick President for 8 years prior to him who was even worse when it came to diplomacy, shoring up America's image and finances.

Point being, share the blame around. Had Bush not gone an invasion rampage, US credibility would be so much higher and you'd probably be able to take the moral high ground with regards to Crimea.

I'll try that and see if it helps.. When Obama picks up his crap and throws it at America, I'll just tell myself that Bush is still making it rain from 7 years ago...kk

GarrusVasNormandy:

I don't understand why so many people in here portray the U.S. as an healthy economy and, mostly by indirect suggestion, that Russia is still a post-Soviet-fall weak economy.

You make a good point. America's economy is not at all as healthy as it politicians and media would have Americans believe, but they have to maintain the ruse, the business as usual routine to maintain the illusion, and Americans hold to illusions like comfort blankets. Many Americans prefer to remain wilfully ignorant on the reality of their economy, because they are loathe to have to reduce thier lifestyle.

The Fed just prints money, and Western financial institutions back the dollar in order for it to enjoy an artificial value that inhibits its collapse, because if the dollar collapses, Western finance collapses, and they won't allow that to happen. This is what allows the American politicians and media to play the ruse that nothing is wrong, that everything is as it should be, and for the American public to live their level of lifestyle in denial.

Russia, China, and India are the emerging financial superpowers, they can do business with each other, they don't need America or the West for economic growth, but while the business and the opportunity to make money with the West is there, they'll take it. Applying sanctions to Russia is merely a Western attempt to control Russia's economic growth opportunities, to slow it down apace, but Russia can hit back with equal economic power because of its low debt to GDP ratio.

The only reason why other Western countries defer to American finance power is simply out of the fear of the dollar collapse, and not because America's economy is healthy, but because it is in fact very unhealthy. Without the backing of other Western financial institutions, America's economy would have collapsed years ago. The day will come when other Western financial institutions will extricate themselves from America's financial collapse blackmail, because they are no longer looking West for future markets, but are looking East for them. America does not merit the level of its lifestyle, and not too far in future it is going to lose it.

Flatcoat
reply to post by stumason

 

Your analogy falls flat at the first test - To be an accurate comparison, you'd have to say "This is the same as the US invading Mexico, then bussing in loads of Americans to shore up the referendum and then staging a rushed and highly suspect vote on whether they wanted to join the US, all while American soldiers patrol the streets."

You forgot the part where some neo-nazi mob violently overthrew the elected mexican government first.

edit on 19-3-2014 by Flatcoat because: (no reason given)

It is here on ATS but the Russian back leader was impeached legally (TWICE) and he only left himself because after he was officially removed from office on paper he was facing big time criminal charges, and the people were about to get to him for not leaving the office physically like he should have done after the first impeachment. He was a thug like Putin and everyone but Russian FBS hired goons wanted him to leave.

Russia has been pushing around Ukraine for years when they have always wanted to be in the EU and have NATO protection. Just face it, Russia sucks.