Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America vs. Russia
sooner    1/30/2004 11:22:14 AM
Allies--supposedly. Who would strategically win a war?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT
RaptorZ       5/26/2007 2:32:12 PM
One thing about Russia.....yes it's a monster, but here's the thing.....every invasion of Russia has come from where?   From the West.....and failed b/c Russia would fall back to the east and use the terrain that way.
 
What if you could establish a forward base in their east, and work westward, there would be no churn and burn and run from Russia, the only runnin they'd do is out of room...unlike the past.
 
Never say never to anything.....and I wasn't aware that the US ground forces only = 800k.   Thought we were at 1.5 million at a minimum....
 
At any rate, the same could be said of Russia establishing a base in Canada to attack the US, but we're talkin the US vs Russia with the US invading.  
 
A few other things need to go into this too.   The People of Russia, would they welcome the US as liberators or aggressors?   The Putin Gov't has rubbed a lot the wrong way imo....
 
But as I've said b4,  militarily the Russians have my respect as a top notch military with advanced weaponry.   They're on par with anyone in the world imo....lacking behind probably only the US in certain areas.   I don't doubt their tenacity or their heart to fight.   But don't compare the US in Iraq to how we'd fight the Russians if it were to happen.   The US has two war modes.  for regional weaker foes we tend to go easy on them with political limitations.   For a country that has every ability to wipe us out in battle (IE Russia) I know that we'd go back to WWII tactics to win (Minus a-bombs if possible but always an option if in our favor)
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/26/2007 3:51:51 PM

The fact of the matter is the average Russian(and Chinese) probably thinks Americans are a fine people.  But, the U.S government has betrayed Russia after the Soviet collapse.  It's one thing to give lip-service about democracy and freedom, but it's quite another to treat a fallen great power with respect and dignity.  And that is something that the U.S  has failed to do with Russia, or with us for that matter.  Instead of helping Russia after they became a democracy, the U.S stripped them of all honor, and took away their vassal states.  You cajoled(is that the right term?) them to shrink their strategic weapons, while you building up a missile defense at home.  In the mid-90s, the Russians followed the advice of U.S economic delegates to that country.  When that bankrupted the Russian economy, the U.S condescendingly treated the Russians like paupers.  Is it any wonder that Russia's government system has transformed into what it is now(an authoritarian oligarchy with handpicked elections)

Now from a Chinese perspective, it's all very depressingly similar to the treatment we received from the U.S at the end of the cold war, where we were chucked out as an expendable pawn.  All of the economic/military agreements between our two nations were simply cancelled with the U.S keeping all the funds that China paid for them.  Do you realize that both Moscow and Beijing used to be the seat of vast Eurasian empires that dominated the world?    The Russians can't forget the power they had, and neither can we.  Russia is now committed into an alliance with China.


 
Yes, cajoled is one possible correct word choice for that sentence. 
 
Gee, how gauche of us to "betray" Russia by having anything to do with the liberation of their vassal states.  If that's supposed to be a badge of shame, I wear it with pride.  Oh, and we've treated them condescendingly.  Tsk tsk. 
 
Threat them with respect and dignity?  I think you already realize this, but I will remind you that while all humans suffer to some degree under the sin of pride, in general Americans don't give a squat for the concept of "face"--personal or national--and are bemused by people who do.  Furthermore, we don't give a squat whether you think we ought to be concerned about "face" or whether you think we are inferior for not giving a squat about it.  If that causes you or your country a problem--get over yourself. 
 
I have no problem with terminating a contract if it's no longer in our best interests.  However, I do agree that we shold not keep funds specifically for that portion of any contract whose services were not rendered.  If you had already paid $300million for contract work on an F-8 upgrade, for example, but only $200million worth of work had been performed when we unilaterally withdrew from the contract, then we should have returned $100million.  I have no idea what the specific circumstances were of the situation you are referring to, and I hope we did not cheat China the way you assert. 
 
Moscow and Beijing used to be the center of vast empires?  Yeah, and so were a zillion other cities over the centuries.  Whatever.  If you and like-minded Russians want to ally to regain some lost glory, that's no skin off me nose.  Knock yourselves out.  We can go back to Cold War footing and I can be guaranteed full employment for the next five years until I reach mandatory military retirement, and then at least 15+ years until civilian retirement.  Hoody-hoo! 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/26/2007 4:20:32 PM
Did you ever notice that when these stupid (yes, stupid) one-line scenarios (if a simple question of "X v. Y:  who wins?" can even be considered worthy of the label "scenario") involve America on one side, then most of the answer is already implicitly conceded.  By that I mean that the discussion pretty much invariably and immediately converges on the idea (typically a silly idea at that) of America invading and trying to occupy Country Y.  Of course, for many countries the idea we would try to occupy them is just absurd, yet this seems to be taken by some as being some sort of militarily-significant fact that indicates some sort of parity or at least a weakness in the American military.  Meanwhile, at least one "half" of the scenario could be assessing how well Country Y could take the war to America, even to the point of invading and occupying us.  Heh heh, no point in wasting time on that half of the scenario.  My theory is this convergence occurs because it's about the only room for any sort of discussion, as discussing an "America v. Country Y" scenario with the battlefield pretty much anywhere outside of pretty much any Country Y is a foregone conclusion (maybe with a couple exceptions, some of which are just utterly absurd ideas to begin with, such as "USA v. France" or "USA v. UK" for example), so certain people find solace in rushing to the extreme edge of the scenario and then declaring that America can not win at that extreme.  Um, okay, you're right, so I guess you win the argument.  Wow, America must be weak or at least not so strong after all.
 
Why the heck do some people get agitated over the fact that for the last couple decades and for at least the next few decades (unless something very unusual occurs), America has had and will have the most powerful military on the planet?  So what?  That's a fact, drive on. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    DisplacedJim   5/27/2007 1:09:37 AM

As always, I respect your opinions and point of view.  However, I have to disagree with some of your points.


The fact of the matter is the average Russian(and Chinese) probably thinks Americans are a fine people.  But, the U.S government has betrayed Russia after the Soviet collapse.  It's one thing to give lip-service about democracy and freedom, but it's quite another to treat a fallen great power with respect and dignity.  And that is something that the U.S  has failed to do with Russia, or with us for that matter.  Instead of helping Russia after they became a democracy, the U.S stripped them of all honor, and took away their vassal states.  You cajoled(is that the right term?) them to shrink their strategic weapons, while you building up a missile defense at home.  In the mid-90s, the Russians followed the advice of U.S economic delegates to that country.  When that bankrupted the Russian economy, the U.S condescendingly treated the Russians like paupers.  Is it any wonder that Russia's government system has transformed into what it is now(an authoritarian oligarchy with handpicked elections)

Now from a Chinese perspective, it's all very depressingly similar to the treatment we received from the U.S at the end of the cold war, where we were chucked out as an expendable pawn.  All of the economic/military agreements between our two nations were simply cancelled with the U.S keeping all the funds that China paid for them.  Do you realize that both Moscow and Beijing used to be the seat of vast Eurasian empires that dominated the world?    The Russians can't forget the power they had, and neither can we.  Russia is now committed into an alliance with China.




 

Yes, cajoled is one possible correct word choice for that sentence. 

 

Gee, how gauche of us to "betray" Russia by having anything to do with the liberation of their vassal states.  If that's supposed to be a badge of shame, I wear it with pride.  Oh, and we've treated them condescendingly.  Tsk tsk. 

Many of those Russian commonwealth allies had working democracies that were not under direct Russian influence.  If a country  simply have natural affinity for another larger country due to economic/historical/cultural ties,  breaking that affinity is not "liberation".  Now, if America had stood back and allowed the natural democratic process to take it's course, I doubt any Russian would feel betrayed if a pro-American candidate won the elections(disgruntled perhaps).  But the U.S didn't do that, instead the U.S committed a series of illegal actions to force those vassals into  pro-American regimes.  Now these illegal actions consisted of things like:

1.  Giving the pro-American candidate many times the campaign funds as his nearest unsupported competitor, when it was clearly prohibited under national laws.

2.  Giving the pro-American candidate unlimited media advertising access through American satillite TV and radio networks into the country in question, that is also illegal.

3.  Sending massive amounts of money and weapons to support "democratic" uprisings in already democratic states that simply didn't elect an U.S-backed leader.

4.  Sending massive amounts of money to ex-soviet military generals to overthrow democratically elected leaders who were not pro-American.
 
So the message is clear, if an ex-soviet state decides on their own to join your camp, that's no problem.  But involving yourself in their domestic political/military situation to ensure that it happens is betrayal.


Threat them with respect and dignity?  I think you already realize this, but I will remind you that while all humans suffer to some degree under the sin of pride, in general Americans don't give a squat for the concept of "face"--personal or national--and are bemused by people who do.  Furthermore, we don't give a squat whether you think we ought to be concerned about "face" or whether you think we are inferior for not giving a squat about it.  If that causes you or your country a problem--get over yourself.&n
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/27/2007 6:06:18 PM

Many of those Russian commonwealth allies had working democracies that were not under direct Russian influence.  If a country  simply have natural affinity for another larger country due to economic/historical/cultural ties,  breaking that affinity is not "liberation".  Now, if America had stood back and allowed the natural democratic process to take it's course, I doubt any Russian would feel betrayed if a pro-American candidate won the elections(disgruntled perhaps).  But the U.S didn't do that, instead the U.S committed a series of illegal actions to force those vassals into  pro-American regimes.  Now these illegal actions consisted of things like:

1.  Giving the pro-American candidate many times the campaign funds as his nearest unsupported competitor, when it was clearly prohibited under national laws.

2.  Giving the pro-American candidate unlimited media advertising access through American satillite TV and radio networks into the country in question, that is also illegal.

3.  Sending massive amounts of money and weapons to support "democratic" uprisings in already democratic states that simply didn't elect an U.S-backed leader.

4.  Sending massive amounts of money to ex-soviet military generals to overthrow democratically elected leaders who were not pro-American.

 
So the message is clear, if an ex-soviet state decides on their own to join your camp, that's no problem.  But involving yourself in their domestic political/military situation to ensure that it happens is betrayal.

 
It's about not kicking someone while he's down.  It is worth reminding you that immediately after the Soviet Collapse, the U.S promised support, loans and aid to that nation.  The Russian winters of 91 and 92 were none too easy with most of that country's power-grid down.   The country was literally starving and freezing to death and the U.S didn't allow them to have food aid or loans.  How and why?  The U.S had a controlling stake in the IMF and World bank, and before the Russians agreed to the U.S dictated START II treaty terms they got nothing.  We(China), otoh, gave them billions of USD worth of food and fuel aid during their hardest times even when they were our enemy.  It's this little Eastern anachronism called honor which the Western cultures like the U.S apparently doesn't share.

Likewise in the mid-90s, the Russians still had enough lingering trust to allow American Federal Reserve delegates to advise their economy.  That was run to the ground, and when Russia asked for support in aid and loans, the U.S shrugged it's shoulders and said it's your problem.


 
The U.S only cheats poor countries like this.  Countries that do not have significant influence in the World bank and IMF and without large cash reserves gets the U.S shaft.  Basically, U.S companies engages in projects with country X, country X forks over  money to get things started, the U.S government changes policy on Country X, and the companies leave and keep the money.  Country X, being poor and unrepresented in the UN monetary/financial agencies, have no legal means of contesting the theft in the international arena, it's a very clever trick.

That is essentially what happened with the J-7 upgrade program, the U.S Aerospace firms took 300 million USD, the Soviets collapsed, we were told that it was no longer in the U.S "interest" to deal with us, and the money was gone.  To cite something closer to home, 20 million USD was given to U.S firms to design and build the Shanghai municipal water sanitation system.  The cold war ended, and they  pulled out  immediately and never returned the money.  China, since it had no money and influence then, couldn't contest such outright theft.

Another example would be Pakistan's F-16s.  While Pakistan was being used by the U.S as a weapons transit nation in the 80s Soviet
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       5/27/2007 10:07:28 PM

The russian army is actually more powerful then the u.s army. Russia has the second largest armend forces in the world. 1,5 million well trained soldiers. They have the largest air force in the world , 2,400 aircrafts (The U.S has 250). They also have about 9,300 ACV's ( the U.S has 1,400). And dont forget that russia also has 5,000
artillery (the U.S has about 350). And lets not take about their navy. Largest and most developed submarine force. I know these number sound crazy. I could'nt belive it myself. Now you might say, "well the U.S army is alot more advanced and newer". Well not really. The U.S.S.R broke down in 1991. I know for sure that 90% of the army are from the 80's. The MIG plains are very advanced. I have seen them. Im dont think that russia could actually invade the U.S but The U.S would'nt stand a chance. Russia is still a Superpower, if not a Megapower.
Considering New York City is more productive than Russia, I wouldn't call it a mega power. We have a lot more than 1400 IFV's, and a hell of a lot more than 250 aircraft. Well trained soldiers? You mean soldiers who are perpetually drunk, get beaten by their officers? The army that has a higher suicide rate than most funny farms? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Russian military budget below 30 billion dollars?

 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/27/2007 10:52:09 PM
It's more then that now, it's around $32 Billion thanks to Putin. Why they may not be what they were back in the Soviet era, even if I was incharge of the worlds most advanced and largest military, ie the US, I still wouldn't want to face them, any way lets not get this "we're better then you" argument started again.
 
Quote    Reply

George2007       6/6/2007 10:03:18 AM
Why you didnt talk about STELT,f-117 or B2,russians have a big fear from that technology?
For a Nuclear War - USA have NORAD,so what have RUSSIA,and I'm not sure for taht,russia will survive after war?
 
 
Quote    Reply

George2007       6/6/2007 10:20:03 AM
Why you didnt talk about STELT,f-117 or B2,russians have a big fear from that technology?
For a Nuclear War - USA have NORAD,so what have RUSSIA,and I'm not sure for taht,russia will survive after war?
 
 
Quote    Reply

McDohl       6/6/2007 12:32:46 PM
Really, I didn't know the Russians feared the US STELTH technology that much or at all....You cant really say they fear them beacause we hadn't had a war with Russia and we do not fully know what their SAM capabilites are however (the F-117correct me if Im wrong I really dont remember what plane it was) was shot down by a Russian SAM system in Yugoslavia? Now about NORAD yes we have NORAD but the Russians have a similar system and the base is located somewhere in the Urals region. However there has never been a nuclear exhange between the two countries so whats the real significance of these systems? who will come out on top after the nuclear exchange. the real answer would have to be after a first hand witnessing of the war. If that ever happens lets get back on this post and find out the winner. Thats if we survive that is.....haha.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics