[vtsnowedin]

I never said the bad guys would come through the attack without taking losses, far from it. What I said is, if anyone wants to put in the effort they can absolutely sink a battle group or a task force or heck a whole fleet. .

There is where we disagree. Of course anyone attempting a attack against the USN would only do so if they had some prospect of successes but there is no armed force in the world that has the capability of taking out a whole fleet or even a major portion of one. And that includes deploying nuclear weapons against us as any opponents life expectancy after launching a nuke of any type against us is counted in minutes and they all know it.

[Subjectivist]

I never said the bad guys would come through the attack without taking losses, far from it. What I said is, if anyone wants to put in the effort they can absolutely sink a battle group or a task force or heck a whole fleet. .

There is where we disagree. Of course anyone attempting a attack against the USN would only do so if they had some prospect of successes but there is no armed force in the world that has the capability of taking out a whole fleet or even a major portion of one. And that includes deploying nuclear weapons against us as any opponents life expectancy after launching a nuke of any type against us is counted in minutes and they all know it.

You are assuming all human beings will always behave rationally. Whichever Km is running North Korea wants to enjoy the good life so he probably won't do it, but a lot of countries now have advanced weapons, A or H doesn't make much difference. Some of those countries include Pakistan, which is always one step away from revolution, or even Turkey, which fears Russia and the USA today, but might not in the future. Not to mention Iran is easily capable of building a weapon if they accumulate enough materials. Shooting down even a low tech SCUD missile is not a simple process, but I would be more fearful of the small fast but hard to spot craft like a zodiac launched by a tanker. These are all just wild scenarios right now, but that is not a permanent situation.

[AgentR11]

Of course anyone attempting a attack against the USN would only do so if they had some prospect of successes but there is no armed force in the world that has the capability of taking out a whole fleet or even a major portion of one. And that includes deploying nuclear weapons against us as any opponents life expectancy after launching a nuke of any type against us is counted in minutes and they all know it.

There are two scenarios, not one here. You presume that the USN / NATO / EU would not be the one to initiate large scale hostilities. This is an assumption that Russia and China can not make. And Russia has more than enough history with Western Europe for them to rationally assume that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of NATO is to prepare for and execute a large scale attack, invasion, and occupation of the Russian Federation.

Now, of course, as subjects of the Atlantic Empire, we think the idea is beyond implausible; but step back for a moment from the presumption of good guy/bad guy behavior.

Russia BELIEVES NATO intends to attack, invade, occupy, and forcefully split up their country at the first low cost opportunity.

This is the source of our current danger; in that because they expect and prepare for that event, they could misinterpret an action or accident on the part of NATO as an initiation of that invasion.

So you say, well, they can wait a bit, and the accidental nature will become clear, apology will follow, encroachment reveresed, etc.

They can't wait. There is NO time in modern warfare between great powers. (great power being defined as a country that can kill 1 million or more of an adversary at will) As there is NO time, they have to launch/order their counterattack within a couple minutes at most; and worse, because of US missile defense; they have to assume that each defense launch site will be able to kill the first fifty or so vehicles. Thus the appropriate military response to a NATO tank crossing into Western Russian quickly goes from a Russian saying "halt" to several thousand conventional and nuclear weapons inbound towards Western Europe.

Russia will not consent to being destroyed while Western Europe goes unharmed. No matter how much hollywood might like to tell you otherwise.

[AgentR11]

Talking about the interception of 100% of incoming Onyx missiles is simply delusional. Americans are truly trapped in a bubble reality. As if CIWS is something only the USA has and those Russian untermenschen have not taken it into account.

Its ridiculous, in the same way the various youtube video's that put Fighter X against Fighter Y in some contrived dog fight and say OOH AHH!!

I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that the close in weapons systems of the USN could reliably kill AN Onyx.

But there won't by "an" Onyx in an attack against Russia. There will be dozens, simultaneous, on a single target. And if doing a coordinated strike on a USN battle group it is not at all unreasonable to assume a hundred+ simultaneous inbounds. All AEGIS/CIWS can be overwhelmed by numbers, and its not all that difficult to figure out what the number is.

And you know what, an Onyx, or a dozen Onyx, or a hundred Onyx, will still be far, far cheaper than the ships they kill.

[vtsnowedin]

Russia worried that we will invade them? Why would we want to? The only thing they have is a lot of gas and some oil and they have to sell that to Europe to pay their own bills. We are just fine leaving them alone as long as they stay home and you can be sure they have enough well placed spies to know that is our intention.
The danger is that Putin or his successor will see our leadership as weak and ineffective and make a grab for one of their old satellite countries thinking they can bluff us into letting it go. Unfortunately the spies also accurately report the state of confusion and ineptitude at our top back to Moscow. Or he can just watch CNN and watch people be totally clueless in front of the cameras.

[Sixstrings]

The danger is that Putin or his successor will see our leadership as weak and ineffective and make a grab for one of their old satellite countries thinking they can bluff us into letting it go.

Or even more incredibly, a western democracy -- after years of being influenced by kremlin propaganda programs, like RT etc. -- finally just VOTES to become a Russian satellite!

Jeremy Corbyn (green party) over in the UK, is VERY pro Russia. And he got pretty far, all the way to Labour Party leader. And look what happened with UK, they voted brexit. Which aligns with Moscow's interests.

Then here in the US -- there was some concern about Trump for a while. For goodness sake, his campaign manager was previously a senior political adviser for ex ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich.

The Russian Ambassador was in the front row, first seat of his foreign policy speech.

And Trump was saying crazy things, like maybe just disband NATO, and that Putin is so great. Wtf.

Russian propaganda is so strong, and it's blasted on all the tv's in Russia and all their state media and then they have an entire wing that spends BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of hard money just on pumping out the propaganda to international audiences.

It has an affect. Now when there's an international crisis, a good solid 40%ish chunk of Americans are actually reflexively knee jerk giving the kremlin propaganda line.

So that's why I'm talking about establishment things lately, and REALITY.

People can't just talk about RUSSIA all the time -- they need to talk about Sweden too, and Poland, and Norway, and Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania. They need to understand these places TOO. That Poles are people TOO, same as Russians are, and it's the former that's allied to us and is our friend. Not to mention all the Polish Americans we have in this country.

The reality is that no, we cannot ever throw Poland under the bus. Maybe the Brits can, or west euros can / don't give a flip, but we cannot.

After the Cold War, and east europe joining the West.. whether these places stay in EU or not, AMERICA still must be there for them. Because WE are democracy's ultimate backstop.

That's what this country's values are -- democracy, rule of law, human rights, doing the right thing. DEFENDING democracies abroad, and promoting democracy in the world, because we know that makes a better world.. and is safer for us. Democracies don't war on each other, or others. Democracies have the most freedom, and therefore the best economies and most tech innovation, and progress overall.

Americans do not believe in a world where people MUST be ruled by strongmen, and iron fists, and just TOLD what to do.

These are basic fundamental principles that goes back centuries in this country, and no amount of Russian propaganda should ever wipe that away.

Wake up folks, consider the words of Gary Kasporov:

Garry Kasparov Says Donald Trump Assault on “the System” is an Assault on Democracy
https://youtu.be/nQ0w6fu73tk

Kasporov liked Marco Rubio, back in the primaries:

Garry Kasparov Says Marco Best Candidate to Deal with Putin
https://youtu.be/fBWgzOkclv8

My pick (for an establishment pick), back in the primaries, was JEB BUSH. It's BUSH that would have been BEST on foreign policy. Honestly. Jeb was perfect, he is like HW Bush actually and not W. But that's water under the bridge now, nobody liked Jeb.. but I have to tell ya folks, he really would have been the best president.

My only complaint was just that he was not for a few lefty domestic things, like minimum wage. Foreign policy though, and decisive yet JUST and fair commander in chief? And core American values, and integrity, and morality, honesty and a good guy? That's Jeb Bush.

Also, incidentally, Bernie Sanders is NOT green party type far left to the point of being like a kremlin puppet. Bernie is a leftist that matured over the years, and with age. In the Senate, Bernie voted for every Ukraine support bill. Bernie supports NATO, he believes in American values.

Bernie's establishment, on foreign policy. And that's why I was happy to vote for Bernie, because he was for the things that need done domestically, but he had the right stance on foreign policy too (I would NEVER trade American values just to see some social programs passed.. if it's a choice between those two, it must be the former, because that is the RIGHT thing).

EDIT: as neocon as I'm sounding, just to note, actually Marco Rubio was too neocon for me. It's one thing for me to make a post on this forum, but I don't actually want a president that rants and raves about it. And that's what Rubio did. He was just too zealous.

PERFECT is someone like old HW Bush. Or Reagan. The right values but not a zealot either, and calm. In the Republican primary, that was Jeb Bush. But alas, Republicans wanted exciting. They wanted change, and "something different." I wish the political realities were such that Jeb Bush could have just been for $15 minimum wage.

When we talk about ending globalism, or pulling out of NATO, and questioning whether Japan is an ally etc. etc. ... these are such SERIOUS things, that raising taxes on some rich just a tad, or corporate America having to pay a $15 min wage is NOTHING in comparison.

For the future -- it would be NICE if somehow, there could start being some HW Bush type Republicans again. That they could raise taxes on the rich a bit, and not get run out of office.. that they could just do a few good things on domestic policy; otherwise, THAT type of Republican is very good in office.

Another thing to clarify -- I'm not anti Russia, I am in fact in favor of working with Russia and really TRYING on that, but the main thing is that can't mean we ever lose our American values.

And the last thing I'll say -- is just that Russia isn't the only place in the world. There needs to be some more focus on issues in Mexico, like helping them combat their drug cartels etc.. and there should be more cooperation / working with Canada and South America.

And the US needs to do some more getting India into the fold, out in the Pacific. And we have to work with China, but also COUNTER them too -- get India on board with us, and then we've got Japan and SK and Indonesia and Australia all on the same team.. then solidify Vietnam (Obama did a big trip over there).. if India were added to that, then that's good national security. That's the whole Pacific, other than China.

[AgentR11]

Russia worried that we will invade them? Why would we want to?

I dunno, seems dumb to me, but we also seem to get this irresistible urge to do just that ever fifty years or so. We get worked up; assemble an alliance, and invade Russia. It always ends badly, millions die for no good reason, and Russia remains, more or less, Russia. Thus, Russia's paranoia about the purpose of NATO is entirely rational.

What we NEED to do is both provide deterence, and also do a TON of work to make sure the Russians don't misread an action as the initiation of an invasion. Because that is exactly what they think we plan to do; and they have no choice but to respond full-out, very early in the game if they believe such is underway. There is no time available for them to "confirm" the process. They have seconds, and minutes. Not hours and days.

Russia's strategic response has to be sufficiently damaging to EU/NATO such that EU/NATO is unable to sustain an occupation force within Russia after all the nukes have been exchanged. For that to be true; they must launch very quickly after the first tank or first missile crosses their border.

The danger is that Putin or his successor will see our leadership as weak and ineffective and make a grab for one of their old satellite countries thinking they can bluff us into letting it go.

None of the ex-"satellites" are worth having for Russia; they all create cost, and provide no benefit, not military, and not economic. They are sink holes for effort. They don't even want Donbas; wouldn't take it if we tried to give it to them. They're even losing interest in the vile policies of the little baltics with regards to people who were living there at the time the country came into existence, but do not speak the odd Nordic language of the namesake. Makes my skin crawl that we are allies with such repulsive nations, but, they're good for annoying Russia and being a designated battlefield should real hostilities occur. I'd much rather see Estonia as a burned out, radioactive, wasteland than Berlin or Paris.

Thus, overall their presence as part of NATO is acceptable, but I want them pull their weight, and I want them to take seriously the responsibility to insure that the enemy doesn't mistake exercise and defensive preparation for underway invasion. Because such an error will leave millions of Western Europeans dead; and those little Baltic countries as burned out wastelands.

[Sixstrings]

I dunno, seems dumb to me, but we also seem to get this irresistible urge to do just that ever fifty years or so. We get worked up; assemble an alliance, and invade Russia.

If by "we" you mean the United States, then in the 240 year history of this country that is NOT the case.

* We bought Alaska at the tsar's offering, because he needed the money, and he knew the British or Spanish would invade it. So USA helped Russia out.
* Teddy Roosevelt won the nobel peace prize, for negotiating peace between Russia and Japan.
* In the 1920sish, the USA did a massive relief effort in Russia.. SAVING the nation from utter starvation and famine. It's a true story. Look it up.
* The trouble started in the socialist revolution.. actually, the West was never sure what to do. Who to back. The tsar, or the communist rebels. Or whether to stay out if it. they chose to stay out of it; and then the thing dragged on for so long, and was such a catastrophe, that the western powers finally intervened a little bit on the tsar's behalf (I can't remember if the US had anything to do with that one).

To no avail. The bolsheviks won. But nobody cared, it was Russia's business -- except for that famine, that Americans saved them from.

* USA did a lot of BUSINESS with the new communist Soviet Union. Good relations, no problem, even though Americans were obviously leery about communism ever getting started up over here.

* WWII -- all that stuff with hitler, first Stalin makes a pact with them, then Hitler invades Russia. USSR was a US ally, throughout the war.

* The Cold War -- we all know the history of that.

* Post cold war -- it wasn't on the scale of the 1920s famine relief, but HW Bush did a large relief program to make sure Russia didn't fall apart after it transitioned from communism. Lots of food was shipped over.

It was hoped Russia was a new friend, in the West now, like all the rest of east europe was.

Sadly, things went bad with Putin.. the main disagreement he had was with Merkel and the West, about corruption issues. That caused the break with the West.

So Agent, where in all that history do you see "we get worked up; assemble an alliance, and invade Russia."

[Tanada]

In 1918-20 the USA invaded Russia in support of the "White" army to try and defeat the "Red" and "Black" Armies. The Russian civil war was a three way conflict where the USA most definatly picked a side and sent troops in support. Russia has never forgotten that, its a shame your history teacher forgot to teach you about it.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... sia-1.html

[AgentR11]

If by "we" you mean the United States, then in the 240 year history of this country that is NOT the case.

I mean Western Europeans in general. Its always the same drill; assemble an alliance, invade Russia, get millions killed; eventually lose, and retreat. Seems cyclic.

When Russian's see NATO assembling and expanding, they don't see something being built to protect from a Russian invasion; they see something being built specifically and solely for the purpose of invading Russia and killing millions of Russians.

[AgentR11]

* Post cold war -- it wasn't on the scale of the 1920s famine relief, but HW Bush did a large relief program to make sure Russia didn't fall apart after it transitioned from communism. Lots of food was shipped over.

Food was shipped AFTER Russia paid. NOT charity. They were going to prevent those shipments from arriving if Russia did not fork over the cash and destroy their currency.

It was hoped Russia was a new friend, in the West now, like all the rest of east europe was.

You don't treat a friend, like we treated Russia post break up. We insured their economy would stay broken, looted to oligarchs, allowed her people to taste starvation. No; our actions guaranteed that if Russia ever got its feet under it again, they would absolutely NOT be our friend. It will take generations for that mistrust to dissipate.

Sadly, things went bad with Putin.. the main disagreement he had was with Merkel and the West, about corruption issues. That caused the break with the West.

Yes, its so very sad, Putin stopped the loot train from continuing to pump all wealth out of Russia and into the UK and US. Definitely an evil twerp; depriving us of our well deserved loots.

As to corruption, its a plague in all former soviet states, including the ones you love. The problem is that the West doesn't want to get rid of corruption; they just want to get rid of corruption that doesn't serve its interests. The West is perfectly happy to protect corrupt individuals and funds, as long as those are obedient to our interests.

Putin, considering that he likes Russia more than he likes the US and UK, started making life really difficult for the corrupt folks that were/are loyal to us. Thus, Putin is evil and must be destroyed.

[sparky]

.As I've mentioned before , things are changing in the secret bosom of the big Nato Brotherhood
Frau Merkel seems to have mentioned her displeasure to the POTUS.
and just to make it plain , like shouting it on the roof top , here is a piece from Der Spiegel ,
that's the biggest magazine in Germany usually used as the mouthpiece of the government
and to make quite plain it would get some airing it's in the English international section.
their beef is with general strangelove ,oups breedlove ,

" Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 22193.html
the article go on about the good general was telling lies about Russian forces .
that's not really the point , it said there has been a serie of meeting where Allies took up the subject .
and Obama doing nothing to a general running his own foreign policy hand in hand with Hillary potential foreign secretary
the notorious "fu..k you" Nuland .
So either it's either a "good cop bad cop" act or Mr President cannot or care not to control his own administration.

as for the force deployed by Canada in Latvia , the good folks over Niagara falls are scratching their head wondering what exactly they got themselves into.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-ca ... -1.3672830

[vtsnowedin]

None of the ex-"satellites" are worth having for Russia; they all create cost, and provide no benefit, not military, and not economic. They are sink holes for effort. They don't even want Donbas; wouldn't take it if we tried to give it to them. They're even losing interest in the vile policies of the little baltics with regards to people who were living there at the time the country came into existence, but do not speak the odd Nordic language of the namesake. Makes my skin crawl that we are allies with such repulsive nations, but, they're good for annoying Russia and being a designated battlefield should real hostilities occur. I'd much rather see Estonia as a burned out, radioactive, wasteland than Berlin or Paris.

I can't find words worthy of the disgust you churn up here.

[AgentR11]

Tough. That's really the only value that Estonia, et al, provide to NATO. Battlefields that are not Berlin and Paris.

And they certainly seem desperate to see Russia invaded or attacked. I think they have some weird blinders on that convinces them that by some magic reason, they'll be able to launch NATO against Russia, and something will remain alive within the boundaries of Estonia. Its a sickness that can only be explained by an unquenchable lust for revenge.

If they succeed in their lust, they will deserve their reward in full measure.

[sparky]

.
@ agent
"Its a sickness that can only be explained by an unquenchable lust for revenge."
you are somewhat wrong , desire for revenge has little to do with it .

Russophobia is a variant of hydrophobia also known as rabies
its a disease which affect the nervous system , in its acute phase the symptoms are identical ,
deterioration of the higher mental faculties , uncontrolled aggression , loss of the self preservation instinct
and heavy salivary frothing at the mouth .
it is contagious
I have watched with great concern the progression of the disease ,
the condition has been injected in Ukraine , the patient is not doing well
to my sorrow Poland and Lithuania are terminal cases .

[dissident]

Tough. That's really the only value that Estonia, et al, provide to NATO. Battlefields that are not Berlin and Paris.

And they certainly seem desperate to see Russia invaded or attacked. I think they have some weird blinders on that convinces them that by some magic reason, they'll be able to launch NATO against Russia, and something will remain alive within the boundaries of Estonia. Its a sickness that can only be explained by an unquenchable lust for revenge.

If they succeed in their lust, they will deserve their reward in full measure.

It is lust based on racist hate. Not revenge. If Stalin had treated them like he treated Russians and Chechens there would have been zero of them left by 1953. There were too few of them living there to start with and they could have easily been deported to Siberian gulags en masse. From the late 1950s until 1989 they had it very good in the USSR. They had the highest standard of living and were lavished with every kind of spending on development.

Their collaboration with the Nazis and their reverence for the SS says it all. That Stalin had them invaded and sent of a few thousand upper layer members to Siberia does not justify their open racism. Where are those values they claim to hold? These days they don't openly attack Jews but give them half a chance and they will.

[Sixstrings]

EDIT: rephrase, I think my post sounded like trolling.

In response to sparky and agent -- I just want to note I don't think it's fair on this forum how the Baltics, or Poland, is constantly portrayed in a negative light. And things that sound like outright bigotry.

They're just people, not much different from other east europeans or Russians.

Regarding the Baltics -- it's not Estonia that ever crosses the border over into Russia, it's been the other way around. (like that Estonian border cop that got nabbed)

Seems to me they've got some valid things to worry about, and other than that, they're just people. And they also happen to be democracies, and EU states and American allies.

[AgentR11]

All are just people, 6. And people are ruthless, territorial, medium weight predators with unprecedented lethality. People are NOT nice.

Russia believes that Estonian border cop crossed their border attempting to interfere with their law enforcement. You are essentially saying: I like Bob. Bob said his friend Joe was at X. John said Joe was at Y. I believe Bob (because I like Bob). I like Bob because Joe was at X. Its a circular argument. Neither of us have any way of demonstrating which side of the border the agent was on.

I believe neither Russia nor Estonia are worthy of trust on this issue.

And yes, they do have valid things to worry about; and there are ways of protecting against those valid things that do not heighten the risk of seeing Western Europe accidentally annihilated. Estonia, however, usually prefers those things which maximize that risk. THAT is fact. They make lots of excuses for it; but the physical fact remains; and I draw my conclusions with regard to the malevolence of Estonia strictly from physical facts.

Poland is not quite so bad, being somewhat removed from the Russian border; yet well within Belarus's A2D/air-surveillance. And thus is a GOOD place to locate substantial deterrent force. It both can be well observed and thus understood to be sufficient to counter a Russian conventional attack, and gives plenty of time to undo a misunderstanding before the Russians have to launch all their nukes.

That is a luxury Estonia does not have by geography.

The better way of doing this would be to greatly increase deployment, IN POLAND, and deploy strictly observers and guards for the border, and substantial military police within the cities to counter a Russian sponsored color Revolution. That would work, AND not waste money, AND not greatly increase the risk of waking up one morning to the news of Paris, Berlin, and NYC being turned into burned out craters.

OTOH, Russia could just set some nuclear mines on the border of Kaliningrad that go boom on a dead-man switch type signal; rendering all of those little Baltics forever uninhabitable in the event of a NATO trespass.... So its not like Russia is responding to the maximum of its deterrent capability.

[vtsnowedin]

OTOH, Russia could just set some nuclear mines on the border of Kaliningrad that go boom on a dead-man switch type signal; rendering all of those little Baltics forever uninhabitable in the event of a NATO trespass.... So its not like Russia is responding to the maximum of its deterrent capability.

I take it you have read a few El Ron Hubbard novels. I don't think any nuclear mines exist in any ones nuclear arsenal.

[AgentR11]

No, haven't read much Hubbard; tried a couple but just couldn't "connect" with the style..

As to nuclear mine, it'd simply be a warhead in a tower; Moscow heartbeat pulse errors out or terminates, nuke go boom.