It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia planning War with US

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I doubt Russia could take a war to anyone right about now..

Russia's military is good defensive wise, poor offensive wise...

The US has demonstrated numerous times it doesn't have logistical problems just about anywhere in the world it has deployed

I don't think we should need to go into much detail as to why Russia wouldn't get very far




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

You under estimate the power of Russia. They have some very big countries in their corner and the two major ones (China and Iran) also have the capabilities to launch major wars. The reason why they are defensive is because they are not hell bent on conquering the world like the Americans are.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Dude, the Russians are pulling back from Ukraine. Sanctions worked apparently, maybe there were secret deals made?

Doom off?

edit on 7-5-2014 by HUMBLEONE because: Unst!



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: TritonTaranis

You under estimate the power of Russia. They have some very big countries in their corner and the two major ones (China and Iran) also have the capabilities to launch major wars. The reason why they are defensive is because they are not hell bent on conquering the world like the Americans are.



China has refused to express any support for Russia at the UN.

Iran is not capable of matching the firepower of NATO, let alone with the US.

Syria is too busy with its own internal conflict and wouldn't get far outside of its own territory before it's neighbors shot them out of the sky.

Turkey controls Naval traffic through the Black Sea, and they have always supported the ethnic Tartars of Ukraine and are a NATO member. They could close off Russia's Black Sea facilities within hours.

The combined firepower of both NATO and the US would easily decimate the Russian forces. The Russian military us undisciplined, disorganized and incapable of deploying for the long term. Russia has nothing close to the capability of the US and NATO as a combined force, it is surrounded and would not stand much of a chance in a conflict any larger than Ukraine.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
I doubt Russia could take a war to anyone right about now..

Russia's military is good defensive wise, poor offensive wise...

The US has demonstrated numerous times it doesn't have logistical problems just about anywhere in the world it has deployed

I don't think we should need to go into much detail as to why Russia wouldn't get very far



Russia is not the one rattling the sabre when you look at what Vershbow says,that makes the Headline here moot.
Vershbow was politely told before to STFU when he was US ambassador in South Korea when he ranted on North Korea. He also did a number on Putin when he didn't attend an Ambassadorial ceremony as new American Ambassador to Russia, since he was on his hols. Basically he's an educated Cupid stunt, and how he got the current position in NATO, I have no idea, Oh yes! he was also US Ambassador to NATO at one time. Oh dear!



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
It would not necessarily be so difficult for Russia to carry out confrontations with the U.S. because the logistics are way more stretched for the U.S. than for Russia, at least if the confrontation occurred in Russia's neighborhood.



Logistics would be even more strained if those countries which do a large amount of manufacturing for the U.S. leaned more toward allying with Russia, which they will (China, NK, (we would probably lose south korea in the process to NK), never mind those arab (Iran, Afghanistan, Etceterastan) countries we have been bullying and wasting manpower and resources on for years.



Never mind our manufacturing base is all but completely gone today, which is what enabled us to do well in WW2, I don't say win it because nobody really wins when it goes into armed conflict.



These logistical issues cropped up in every U.S. conflict since WW2, the smaller the world gets, the more people get in the way by demanding space and resources for themselves which complicates procuring resources to waste on war.



War is such a goddamned waste of time, I don't know how some people who sound like they have more than two firing brain cells cannot see it for what it is, actually, in a way I can.



....but that is a different topic completely....











a reply to: MrSpad




BINGO, Shiner. The American war machine has been neglected in favor of
outsourcing, just like our consumer goods. It also got dismantled and
shipped out as scrap for Kia bumpers. The country that wins a war is the
one that makes the other country unable to effectively wage it. If TSHF
our supply lines to what will prove 'adversaries' could suddenly dry up.
We'll be stuck over here with chemical murky turkey jerky and little else,
because we haven't made anything out of anything for over a generation
except debt and lies about it. Example: the last time I looked around,
General Dynamics or Lockheed-Martin didn't make canteens.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: TritonTaranis

You under estimate the power of Russia. They have some very big countries in their corner and the two major ones (China and Iran) also have the capabilities to launch major wars. The reason why they are defensive is because they are not hell bent on conquering the world like the Americans are.



China and Iran would not fight for Russia, they have not even bothered to support Russia in the UN on this one, just no bothering to vote at all. Make no mistake, China and Russia are far more likely to end up in an armed conflict than either one of them with the West. They share a long border and compete in the same markets and both of them think they can beat the other one.

Neither Iran nor China have the ability to affect a ground war in Europe anyway even if they were willing. And as for the "defensive" nature of Russias military we found out earlier that that Russia has been involved in just as many conflicts as the US since the end of the cold war. They just engage in countries along the border that does not get any press coverage.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: tacjtg
Why is this news? Theyve ALWAYS been planning. As we have been against them. Everyone knows that. And no its not now "closer thatn its ever been to..." Bull. Sorry


Thank you. Someone with some sense, lol. I have been stating all along, ever since this Ukraine "crisis" started, that war will not break out. It just won't. I will not reiterate my detailed reasoning, as I have given related arguments in many other threads, but the bottom line remains the same...This will all blow over.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

I guess your right, why would I think that Russia on their own would stand a chance against NATO who has 28 member states including the USA. That's what I find funny about it, 28 vs 1. I bet the majority of those NATO members couldn't fight there way out of a plastic bag either.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
It would not necessarily be so difficult for Russia to carry out confrontations with the U.S. because the logistics are way more stretched for the U.S. than for Russia, at least if the confrontation occurred in Russia's neighborhood.


Russia's neighbourhood is also NATO's.

The US has an experienced military able to mobilize massive amounts of hardware and manpower over thousands of miles, and it has done this several times in the last 50 years. With NATO allies all around Russia, it really doesn't have any advantage.


originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Logistics would be even more strained if those countries which do a large amount of manufacturing for the U.S. leaned more toward allying with Russia, which they will (China, NK, (we would probably lose south korea in the process to NK), never mind those arab (Iran, Afghanistan, Etceterastan) countries we have been bullying and wasting manpower and resources on for years.


The only countries capable of a military confrontation with the US are Russia and China. China has expressed absolutely no support for Russia during it's annexation of Crimea, refusing to side with Russia at the UN.

Even if all the (random) "arab" countries teamed up, they would be put down again within days by a combined US/NATO force. They would merely be an annoyance for a very short while.

As for the reliance of the US on China, this is primarily for consumer electronics and commercial manufacturing. Do you really think a shortage of iPhones is going to damage the US in a global conflict? America doesn't spend trillions on its military just to be crippled because China stops sending over consumer junk.


originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Never mind our manufacturing base is all but completely gone today, which is what enabled us to do well in WW2, I don't say win it because nobody really wins when it goes into armed conflict.


This is somewhat of a myth. It's true that America's CONSUMER manufacturing has been almost completely outsourced to China, but heavy industry and manufacturing is still prevalent in the US. WW2 was about massive overwhelming use of physical might and firepower, and the need to create a hell of a lot of it extremely quickly for an ongoing war. The same is not even close now. America already has a fully armed and capable military, you do not need to operate steel plants 24 hours a day to build clunking planes that are constantly being shot out of the sky.

If it becomes a long and drawn out conflict with constant hardware losses then your argument will be relevant, but as any major conflict between the US and Russia would probably only last a couple of months at the absolute most, this is almost a moot aspect that some love to put out there to give the impression that the US is "weak".


originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
These logistical issues cropped up in every U.S. conflict since WW2, the smaller the world gets, the more people get in the way by demanding space and resources for themselves which complicates procuring resources to waste on war.


I'm not sure what you mean here, but by logistics I assume you mean the ability to move assets at speed and with efficiency. If that's what you mean you are wrong. The US is well versed in getting massive physical assets into place within days of requirement, usually within hours of requirement. The involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan proved this to be effective.

In contrast, Russia has really only thrown stones at its neighbors since WW2.

I agree with your sentiments regarding resources, but then this is equally true of both the US and Russia. Any conflict would involve NATO states and the US against Russia (and possibly China), and while each has massive resources to fall back on too, as a collective force NATO and the US (and other allies who would inevitable end up siding with the US/NATO) would be able to compete perfectly fine.


originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
War is such a goddamned waste of time, I don't know how some people who sound like they have more than two firing brain cells cannot see it for what it is, actually, in a way I can.


I agree. Unfortunately this is the world we live in, if Putin threatens countries with war then we would have to defend those countries and ourselves. What is the alternative? If someone is throwing punches at you, asking them to stop until you're unconscious is not gonna work.

So far, Russia is the only nation pushing for war. Ukraine, America, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland... everyone has asked Putin to roll back, and he hasn't. He's the one threatening peace and stability in the region.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: Rocker2013

I guess your right, why would I think that Russia on their own would stand a chance against NATO who has 28 member states including the USA. That's what I find funny about it, 28 vs 1. I bet the majority of those NATO members couldn't fight there way out of a plastic bag either.



Smaller countries forming alliances to defend themselves against a larger aggressor with thousands of nuclear warheads... yes, what could possibly make sense about that?

And if we really want to go down the route of small countries fighting their way out of a paper bag... the UK against the Nazis.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I figured I'd toss in a few links to recent events for context...


The “Peace Mission 2009” drill was officially started on Wednesday in the Far Eastern city of Khabarovsk by Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov and his Chinese counterpart Chen Bingde.

About 3,000 army and air forces personnel, 300 armored vehicles and 45 aircraft will take part in the maneuvers at the Taonan military range in China. The scenario of the exercise says a large group of terrorists have captured a city and provoked massive riots there. The joint force is to defeat the militants and quell the uprising.
China, Russia launch large-scale war games (Jul - 2009)


The Russian guided-missile cruiser Varyag arrived at an east Chinese naval base Saturday ahead of a planned joint exercise with the Chinese navy, news agency Xinhua reported.

The large-scale war game, the navies’ first bilateral drill, is scheduled Sunday through Friday off the resort city of Qingdao in the Yellow Sea, Xinhua said.
Source: Russian ships arriving in China for naval war game (Apr - 2012)


Pentagon intelligence agencies are closely watching Russian and Chinese war games now taking place in Europe and Asia involving tens of thousands of troops.

Meanwhile, NATO military forces are set to conduct large-scale maneuvers in November that will be designed to counter growing concerns of a westward Russian military encroachment, according to U.S. officials.
Source: Russia, China hold large-scale war games (Sep - 2013)



Russia and China have begun their first naval war games in the Mediterranean in what is seen as preparation for joint military operations in the world ocean far away from their territorial waters.

The joint naval drill, which began on Saturday, involves Russia’s heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great and Chinese frigate Yancheng, the Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement.
Source: Russia, China launch war games in the Mediterranean (Jan - 2014)

I'm not sure what there is to miss here. They haven't simply been doing joint war games and learning to work their military forces together on the same fields at once, but they've been at this for years now. We'll see when or if the shooting starts, who is allied with whom and how deep that runs. It won't be the first time, by any stretch, important details were missed or ignored as unimportant when they become very important later.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
I figured I'd toss in a few links to recent events for context...


I'm not sure what there is to miss here. They haven't simply been doing joint war games and learning to work their military forces together on the same fields at once, but they've been at this for years now. We'll see when or if the shooting starts, who is allied with whom and how deep that runs. It won't be the first time, by any stretch, important details were missed or ignored as unimportant when they become very important later.


Wrab, there was a counter to all that, all the missile bunkers that were to be set up in Eastern bloc non-Russian countries by ostensibly the US and GB/aka NATO and whoever, under the umbrella of the 'Iranian missile threat' which was non-existant. It was supposed to be cancelled, so what do you reckon?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
I figured I'd toss in a few links to recent events for context...


The “Peace Mission 2009” drill was officially started on Wednesday in the Far Eastern city of Khabarovsk by Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov and his Chinese counterpart Chen Bingde.

About 3,000 army and air forces personnel, 300 armored vehicles and 45 aircraft will take part in the maneuvers at the Taonan military range in China. The scenario of the exercise says a large group of terrorists have captured a city and provoked massive riots there. The joint force is to defeat the militants and quell the uprising.
China, Russia launch large-scale war games (Jul - 2009)


The Russian guided-missile cruiser Varyag arrived at an east Chinese naval base Saturday ahead of a planned joint exercise with the Chinese navy, news agency Xinhua reported.

The large-scale war game, the navies’ first bilateral drill, is scheduled Sunday through Friday off the resort city of Qingdao in the Yellow Sea, Xinhua said.
Source: Russian ships arriving in China for naval war game (Apr - 2012)


Pentagon intelligence agencies are closely watching Russian and Chinese war games now taking place in Europe and Asia involving tens of thousands of troops.

Meanwhile, NATO military forces are set to conduct large-scale maneuvers in November that will be designed to counter growing concerns of a westward Russian military encroachment, according to U.S. officials.
Source: Russia, China hold large-scale war games (Sep - 2013)



Russia and China have begun their first naval war games in the Mediterranean in what is seen as preparation for joint military operations in the world ocean far away from their territorial waters.

The joint naval drill, which began on Saturday, involves Russia’s heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great and Chinese frigate Yancheng, the Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement.
Source: Russia, China launch war games in the Mediterranean (Jan - 2014)

I'm not sure what there is to miss here. They haven't simply been doing joint war games and learning to work their military forces together on the same fields at once, but they've been at this for years now. We'll see when or if the shooting starts, who is allied with whom and how deep that runs. It won't be the first time, by any stretch, important details were missed or ignored as unimportant when they become very important later.





Everybody conducts small scale military excercises with everybody. If you recall one of things NATO has done is suspend exercise with Russia over Crimea. China just was part of US exercise in Feb and is sending 4 ships to participate in RIMPAC with the 3rd fleet in June. What does that mean? Nothing. It never does.

What is a problem is Vietnam and India both countries that Russia relies on for its arms markets and both with issues with China, Vietnam in particular. With tensions growing between Vietnam and China, Russia is put in a bad spot. It can not afford to lose Vietnam to the Western markets which is where it will go for weapons and protection if Russia fails to bring China to heal.

Russian arms sales to India are also a problem for China who sees India as it rival in the vital trade zones of the Indian Ocean not to mention its border areas and the Tibet problem.

While these countries are willing to work together in certain areas they are all just a quickly to work with the US against each other in other areas.

The best reason for China and Russia to not fight each other is the fear that the US would side with one side over the other. A conflict say between China and Vietnam (one of the more likely ones) would pit China against ASEAN which is loaded with US friends and allies. Would Russia then abandon it markets in Vietnam by doing nothing? Or would Russia step in defend Vietnam along side the US and allies knowing it would be on the winning side and would not only keep Vietnams markets but, retake markets it has lost around the world to China over the last decade.

That is the world of geo politics. The problem for for Russia, China, India is they are rivals all in the same part of the world. This means the are manuvering against each other as often as they are the West. And the with the West as much much more powerul united front China, Russia and India would not only not fight the West for each other they would look to take advantage of whatever power was getting it from the West.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

I appreciate your interpretation on this and the "nothing to see here..move on now" tone of your approach. It does give balance to the more reactionary posts that always come in the heat of an ongoing event.

However, to term the wargames Russia has engaged in as small is just outright silly. That's the best word I can use.



The United States has fought recent WARS with less men physically in country than what they just threw together for a mere exercise, coordinated with China, last year. Another earlier from that had 10's of thousands of troops from Russia and Belarus working with China for an exercise.

Yes... NATO does it too. The thing is, Russia HAS NOT been for a long time now. Nothing remotely like the scale of 160,000 men in a single event. That was just last summer. The preparation and planning is evident for what we see now and much more than we've seen yet, if one looks, IMO.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The fact that Russia hadn't been is one of the reasons they are now. They have completely overhauled their training to make their troops less regimented than they were under the Soviet model. They have seen what the flexibility US troops have has done in a fight and learned some from that.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed... They have learned well. It'll be interesting, or perhaps we should hope not so much, to find out how well.

I've assumed back to 1991 that Russia and China, among others, were sitting as close to the 'good seats' in Iraq, Serbia (China took a missile through an Embassy window there..they did have a reason to watch), and more to learn every detail they could suck up about our tactics and limitations. A free preview in depth without showing much of their own.

It makes for an awkward moment if we end up in a direct fight, IMO.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It's one thing to understand the tactics and training involved, and another to be able to do it.

The US took a long time to build a cadre that could teach people to do what they do so well. Russia and China are starting from scratch. They'll get there eventually, but it will take them awhile to do it.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: MrSpad

I appreciate your interpretation on this and the "nothing to see here..move on now" tone of your approach. It does give balance to the more reactionary posts that always come in the heat of an ongoing event.

However, to term the wargames Russia has engaged in as small is just outright silly. That's the best word I can use.



The United States has fought recent WARS with less men physically in country than what they just threw together for a mere exercise, coordinated with China, last year. Another earlier from that had 10's of thousands of troops from Russia and Belarus working with China for an exercise.

Yes... NATO does it too. The thing is, Russia HAS NOT been for a long time now. Nothing remotely like the scale of 160,000 men in a single event. That was just last summer. The preparation and planning is evident for what we see now and much more than we've seen yet, if one looks, IMO.


Yeah, but why the hell would they want to get into a war with the US? Even with China's aid, they still only have 1 and a half carrier's, lol. I'm not even sure that POS china has even works yet. I mean, they'd literally be embarrassed to the extent they might even re-define the word to include the encounter.

You see, the reason Afghanistan is taking so long, is most likely a combination of corruption inside the US government, stupid rules of engagement that almost literally tie one hand behind our troops back, and the fact that the enemy is so scared, they are hiding in caves and fighting in a very pu**y attempt at guerrilla warfare, which is very hard to fight.

If anyone remembers the first Gulf War, you might remember what happens when you fight the US in a conventional war.

This is comedy, but here's legend Bill Hick's take on the subject. LoL



Somebody please post the Russia's and China's combined military might, vs the United States and we can end this discussion right there. It might be hard to find, but I'm sure some accurate information is available somewhere.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: 7918465230

I'd ask the same thing for the start of World War I, World War II and others.

The little wars often have some logic at the center of it. The BIG ones often seem to be too complex and too multi-layered to ever get that sense of clarity.

With that in mind, they may not mean for direct confrontation at all. They may simply have decided they absolutely will not be pushed back from what they've decided they are going to do. Have we seen all of that yet? I don't know... Is our side aware of and respecting of the possibility they may have NO backup in them this time? I don't think so, personally.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join