Sputnik International: 'Cold War 2.0 has reached unprecedented hysterical levels'

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Profusion

All I can say is LMFAO. The russians are more like 5 genergations behind the US. Why would the cry baby about our anti missile around their border if they are so far advanced. Their 5th gen aircraft is rusty if you've seen the videos. And pictures.

Never underestimate the enemy force.

Never.

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Profusion

All I can say is LMFAO. The russians are more like 5 genergations behind the US. Why would the cry baby about our anti missile around their border if they are so far advanced. Their 5th gen aircraft is rusty if you've seen the videos. And pictures.

While majority of operational equipment used by USA military was designed in 60' or 70'... Many attempts to upgrade failed miserably costing astronomical amounts.
USA have those terrifying naval Battle groups but question is if they will be still relevant in next generation conflict.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

They won't.

Pentagon naval doctrine is decades obsolete.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Profusion

All I can say is LMFAO. The russians are more like 5 genergations behind the US. Why would the cry baby about our anti missile around their border if they are so far advanced. Their 5th gen aircraft is rusty if you've seen the videos. And pictures.

While majority of operational equipment used by USA military was designed in 60' or 70'... Many attempts to upgrade failed miserably costing astronomical amounts.
USA have those terrifying naval Battle groups but question is if they will be still relevant in next generation conflict.

Truth be told, the US still has air superiority... I am very familiar with the fighters that we have... THAT would be a steep hurdle for ANY adversary to overcome.

a reply to: madmac5150

Question is if they will be relevant at all. Russia will not attack USA - they have nothing to gain of such madness. Russia will also not attack Baltic states or any other NATO member. Active confrontations will take place probably in central Asia regions - where again USA will not want to participate directly. S300 and S400 systems are capable to keep "no flight zones" over battlefield and USA will be limited by mostly hostile neighboring countries unwilling to offer infrastructure for large scale operations.

Is there will to fight Russia in US society? I do not think so unless Russia directly attacks USA. Only handful would die for House of Sauds.

a reply to: madmac5150

NO good deed ever goes unpunished.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: madmac5150

Question is if they will be relevant at all. Russia will not attack USA - they have nothing to gain of such madness. Russia will also not attack Baltic states or any other NATO member. Active confrontations will take place probably in central Asia regions - where again USA will not want to participate directly. S300 and S400 systems are capable to keep "no flight zones" over battlefield and USA will be limited by mostly hostile neighboring countries unwilling to offer infrastructure for large scale operations.

Is there will to fight Russia in US society? I do not think so unless Russia directly attacks USA. Only handful would die for House of Sauds.

One star to you, my friend, for the conversation.

Russia no longer fears us. The Russians see a "limited" nuclear exchange as a viable option to win a war.

That, alone, is scary as hell.

Beyond that, the Chinese would love ocean front property in the SW.

There was a time that an attack on the U.S homeland was unthinkable.

Think again...

a reply to: madmac5150

Chines will simply buy it

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: madmac5150

Chines will simply buy it

Yup... on Obama and Hillary's dime....

a reply to: madmac5150
In particular,

The U.S. West coast is soft... strict gun laws. Seattle/Portland/San Fran/LA/San Diego are all targets. The Rocky Mountains are the "Western Shield". Tough terrain, snipers behind every tree. (I will be one of those...) This is how it plays out...as a military man... (20+ years)

Not as soft as it seems. Washington State for example, along the coast(being Seattle is more Inland) has a lot of firepower still(Veterans galore as well). Also, as it had the Navy,etc. patrolling the Sound, the forests, and the skies. The foothills and before(the basin) to the Rockies has a lot of the "shield" as well.

Sitting here behind a pc reading and translating posts to my Russian wife.Suddenly me 8year old also in the room was asking ?

Why do americans think russians are bad people ?

I couldn't answer the question.... kind of saddening

In the last 2 months I'm starting to dislike u.s.a more and more...
True the people is being lied to by the elite/media but if by now people not see that Russia is not an 'evil' empire than.. well... I'm really starting questioning if there will be ever a point in time when Russia and U.S.A will be not enemies..
I don't hope it will be war... let there be peace

a reply to: dreamingawake

Once again: Why would Russia invade USA?
Let's see records:
1. Georgia 8.8. 2008 crazy Saakashvili (supported by USA and Israeli advisers) is invading disputed South Ossetia region ... one of frozen conflicts zones. Russia response is adequate: Forcing invading forces back. Ossetians are pro-Russia and want independence on Georgia.
2. Donbass is populated by people who simply doesn't want to live under Ukrainian madhouse principals. Their majority feel culturally as "Russians" - but its very complicated here. It was one of most important industrial/mining areas in former USSR but its importance diminished over time. WWII front devastated this area so there almost no "locals". Almost everybody came after war when industry was rebuild. Also there is huge ecological debt: coal mine fires were extinguished by nuclear bombs for example.
Russia is supporting this popular uprising rather covertly. There are no thousands of Russian troops in Donbass. Yes, they are there, invited by locals. Russia legally doesn't claim Donbass.
3. Crimea is problem of legality vs. legitimacy. For sure its legally part of Ukraine. But why? It was long time disputed area finally conquered by Russia on Ottoman empire. Just after Stalin's demise:

In February 1954 the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) transferred Crimea as a gift to Ukraine from the Russians; even if only 22 percent of the Crimean population were ethnic Ukrainian.

en.wikipedia.org...

Everything OK but Sevastopol. It is red line, it is for Russia strategic port without replacement in near (ten years) future. Just imagine: Ukraine, (want to be) NATO member, is hosting Russia strategic naval base. And NATO is alliance based against USSR/Russia.

That is for "invasions". They are not invasions (OK, Crimea maybe sort of ... with popular support). USA have much dire record in past 25 years.

There are Russian minorities in Baltic states, but there is no gain for Russia "securing" them. It will be cheaper to bribe Baltic Russians to relocate to mainland than to occupy few irrelevant regions - risking hot conflict with NATO (why?).

You know, time is on Russia side: They have all natural resources and they are proud - especially if pressed into corner.

My point is: Russia will not start war of conquest because it doesn't need to. Russia will react on turmoil on its borders especially if provoked by West and/or involving fanatic Muslims - SA exported wahhabism led to second bloodshed in Chechnya.