Help support TMP


"Will A US War Against China Or Russia Be A Short Or A Long" Topic


118 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the TMP Poll Suggestions Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Action Log

28 Sep 2021 11:11 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Crossposted to TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest

General
Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Savage Worlds: Showdown


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Amazon's Snow Queen Set

If snowflakes resemble snowy bees, then who rules over the snowflakes?


Featured Book Review


3,210 hits since 19 Jun 2021
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP19 Jun 2021 10:03 p.m. PST

… One?

""For every thousand pages published on the causes of wars," wrote the scholar Geoffrey Blainey half a century ago, "there is less than one page on the causes of peace." A modified version of Blainey's lament might usefully guide U.S. military planning today.

The Pentagon is getting serious about prevailing in the opening stages of a war with China or Russia. But wars between great powers rarely end after the opening salvo. The U.S. needs to be preparing for big, grinding conflicts that could drag on for months or years and thinking as much about how those wars will end as how they might begin.

The scenarios for a war against China or Russia are easily imaginable. Beijing tries to invade Taiwan or make it surrender through bombardment and blockade. Chinese forces strike U.S. allies, such as Japan or the Philippines, in Asia's inner seas. Russia launches a Baltic blitz against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's most exposed members…"

picture


Main page
link


Armand

John the OFM19 Jun 2021 10:33 p.m. PST

Home before the leaves fall.

Cuprum220 Jun 2021 1:57 a.m. PST

Why China can attack Taiwan – I understand. China has never recognized the independence of the island.
But why would Russia attack the Baltics? All that may be of interest to Russia now is the availability of communication with the Kaliningrad enclave. In theory, war can only be possible in the event of a blockade or an attempt to occupy this territory by NATO countries.

And why in the table where the forces of Russia and China are combined (although they are not allies) does not include the combined forces of NATO? As I understand it, this is to make the United States look vulnerable to American taxpayers?)))

JMcCarroll20 Jun 2021 5:54 a.m. PST

Is China expanding into Russia's sphere of influence? Or is there an understanding between them?
I think Russia has more than 320 nukes.

Thresher0120 Jun 2021 7:39 a.m. PST

That's Chinese nukes, not Russian.

Other than Turkey in NATO, my understanding is that few countries still have any/many tanks that are serviceable in their inventories.

Poland may be next, and IIRC is working on re-arming. A lot of others aren't or are actually getting rid of their MBTs.

Cuprum220 Jun 2021 7:40 a.m. PST

China is pushing Russia out of its traditional sphere of influence in Central Asia. China is building its "Silk Road" to Europe bypassing Russia. China is building an icebreaker fleet and this is also a claim to the Russian sphere of influence. China is actively engaged in espionage on Russian territory. China is trying to oust Russia from its traditional arms markets.
There are many contradictions between Russia and China.

Cuprum220 Jun 2021 7:45 a.m. PST

Thresher01, nevertheless they have tanks, artillery, a trained contingent of military personnel and most importantly (in the context of the article) a military industry.
Russia's capabilities for the production of weapons are now extremely weak – it's just that the production base itself is not ready for a big war. I believe that Russia will immediately respond to any serious aggression with a nuclear strike. Russia simply has no other opportunity to confront a serious adversary.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 8:11 a.m. PST

I think we may see … in the long run … numbers may be telling. And as we know other than the USA, many in NATO ain't what they used to be. Even the USA ain't what it used to be. Making things even worse. The USA has a 10% cut in funds for the our military. If I say anymore I'll get DH'd …

In the Far East the ROK and Japanese do have some pretty robust forces. But where or if they can/will be deployed ? Or why ?

But again numbers may be telling on both fronts. And of course the USA cannot fight a 2 front war. The 10% cutbacks won't help at all either …

Guroburov20 Jun 2021 9:37 a.m. PST

Cuprum is right. If the US and Russia went to war, Russia would have to go nuclear very early. They're a military threat only to weaker European nations. Their biggest threat to the US is cyberattacks. Something like 75% of their armor are ancient T-62s to early T-72s rusting in depots and half their navy is for all intents in mothball. China will someday build the lift capacity to truly threaten Taiwan but that is years away. They could invade Vietnam or Korea. Their ground forces are a much more credible threat to our military.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 9:53 a.m. PST

China will someday build the lift capacity to truly threaten Taiwan but that is years away.
That has always been one of their weaknesses. They don't have the numbers/abilities for Force Project. Unless they can cross a border.

Their ground forces are a much more credible threat to our military.
Yes, they do have the numbers … and may be effective by just walking across a border …

Perun Gromovnik20 Jun 2021 10:11 a.m. PST

As I said before, best thing for both Russia and USA is to become good friends becouse on long run China is dangerous for both of them

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 10:12 a.m. PST

Would be nice … but … I just don't think it is going to happen anytime soon.

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 10:25 a.m. PST

Answer to the base question: SHORT!

A major takeaway from WW II and the Cold War was that civilian populations are legitimate targets. The whole theory of bombing such targets was based on a "Cadocracy"--if you violently deprive people of their homes, utilities, places of work, and faith in their government to protect them, they will, like Cads, demand an end to their participation in the war.

Demonstrably--albeit too late for the populations of London, Rotterdam, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, (and likely even Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and Hanoi--the theory proved false. Making people suffer from indiscriminate bombing only made them mad and drove them closer together in shared suffering in a common cause.

But with the advent of computers, the Internet, and the nearly universal reliance on these systems to regulate even the most basic needs for US and European populations (mass transport, electricity, water, etc), it has become possible to deny all these and the systems relying on them without exploding so much as a firecracker.

When the Chinese make their move--and having the initiative, it will be where and when it bests suits their purpose--the US will be blacked-out, internal communication interdicted, the electrical grid, water works, mass transportation, pipelines, etc, shut down, leaving a panicked public in the dark and left to their basest instincts.

They won't even be able to know they have been "attacked." Some will cry it's the end of the world, others will blame Aliens, some that it's only local, even though they can't get any reliable word from elsewhere. If it happens in winter, they will be cold. Hours of this will be demoralizing enough, but if it lasts for days--or weeks--total chaos will descend.

Years of hacking reconnaissance and test runs have been building up by both China and Russia, and is clearly intended for just such a scenario to be unleashed with keystrokes just as the bombers and mid-range missiles launch to strike their primary targets.

Military/state communications might be less effected, but they will be more intensely targeted than any other. Our space based reconnaissance capacity will come under immediate attack and, if not be completely destroyed, must be severely compromised.

With chaos in country, and reacting to a surprise assault, the prospects for Government choosing a prolonged war seem minimal. A week or two, possibly less, and the US will have to call for a "Cease Fire," and--if granted--will certainly transition to settling for peace. The need to restore order within the US will, alone, be a "third front" for limited resources to face.

Yes, we have similar capacities to interdict via the Internet the infrastructures of the enemy nations--but they will have struck first, and a government not looking to enlarge or intensify an already dangerous situation, will be at least reluctant to attempt inflicting the same internal disaster on others.

And, since the enemy has chosen their moment, their own defenses against cyber-attacks will already be at full alert.

Despite the nascent efforts to make the armed forces "politically correct," if the conflict starts in the next couple of years or so, I do expect our frontline forces to fight back, and potentially with the same "backs to the wall" courage demonstrated in the Far East in the opening weeks of WW II. But getting necessary reinforcements to the most vulnerable points will still take time we may not have.

No, our enemies are not perfect. They have serious problems of their own, not least being any meaningful war experience in living memory. However, they will have the initiative and sufficient forces to allow for overwhelming strength to be concentrated at key objectives.

The world is no longer 1939. The essentially "science fiction" leaps in communications, air speeds, precision munitions, and more, all add up to a massive initial confrontation which will spend itself in a breathtakingly short time.

And, "Yes," before every war, the cry has been, "Home before the leaves fall," and such cries have largely been dead wrong. But the world has changed profoundly, and the US has, as well.

In the age of Hyper-sonics, results and decisions are going to be made far faster than people can react to them, especially when they're in the dark, without running water, phones, radio/tv, and with only their frightened imaginations.

I sincerely wish someone can demonstrate the above actually unlikely, and from there explain why the Third World War (and always assuming no one is foolish enough to use Nukes to provoke the same response), would last years, not weeks.

Oh, and one more point: A common enemy makes for a common cause.

If/When the balloon goes up (most likely in the Pacific, IMHO), and the US is up to its eyeballs in trouble, Russia will take full advantage of the situation, and the Chinese will hardly interfere with them for the obvious benefits to both.

God Help Us.

TVAG

Irish Marine20 Jun 2021 11:21 a.m. PST

The real question is who will fight this war. If, by the US Army's recruitment commercial that lacked any sort of war fighting desire, but was full of woke nonsense and gay marriage than I guess it won't last that long. The children of the United States are not being taught that this country is worth fighting for, so again, I ask who will fight for it.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 4:01 p.m. PST

Thanks!


Armand

gregmita220 Jun 2021 4:09 p.m. PST

When the Chinese make their move--and having the initiative, it will be where and when it bests suits their purpose--the US will be blacked-out, internal communication interdicted, the electrical grid, water works, mass transportation, pipelines, etc, shut down, leaving a panicked public in the dark and left to their basest instincts.

It's the rankest insanity to think this will not result in a nuclear response. I hope Chinese leaders are not insane like this.

Cuprum220 Jun 2021 8:38 p.m. PST

Perun Gromovnik, alas, it was not China that declared Russia its enemy, it was not China that promoted its military bloc to the borders of Russia after the end of the Cold War …
I remember the time when the Russian president spoke publicly: "God bless America!" But such sentiments cost Russia too dearly in the future.

Personal logo Wolfshanza Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2021 10:58 p.m. PST

I ask who will fight for it.

Yep. Back to the better red than dead way of thinking ? :(

Cuprum220 Jun 2021 11:21 p.m. PST

I'm not sure if I understood your statement correctly.
If we are talking about the fact that Russia can choose communist China as an ally, then it is quite possible. As far as I can see, China is not actively spreading communist ideology in its area of focus. The Chinese Communists in general, in my opinion – it is the nationalists with a slight touch of red)))

Perun Gromovnik21 Jun 2021 3:59 a.m. PST

Cuprum2, i know that US constantly pushes Russia into Chinese arms with agresive moves and provocations. I just say that it would be better that US takes Russia as allay not as enemy. China is much dangerous for both of them then Russia is for US and vice-versa

Cuprum221 Jun 2021 5:43 a.m. PST

Personally, I get the impression that the United States needs Russia as an enemy in order to preserve NATO and a large American influence in Europe. China is unlikely to seriously scare the European allies – it is too far away. And Russia is a familiar enemy, causing the familiar fear in Europe.

Kevin C Supporting Member of TMP21 Jun 2021 7:51 a.m. PST

Russia is a more politically correct enemy for Hollywood and people in the state department. China, on the other hand is a real threat, but since it has influence in Hollywood, American (international) finance and other powerful corporate interests in the U.S. it's threat is often ignored or covered up. The fact is, Russia has a tough enough time holding itself together and even its most aggressive foreign policy makers seem to advocate a policy much more in keeping with Russian nationalists of the Czarist period and don't seem to have the globalist ambitions of the former Soviets. This is not to say that there are not some in Russia who mean the U.S. harm, but even those seem to be either criminals motivated by profit and/or those who wish to poke the U.S. in the eye out of resentment and/or fears that American policy makers are beginning to encroach in areas of Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

The U.S. should take cyber attacks very seriously and deal with these threats aggressively. However, American policy makers also need to realize that their first obligation is to the American people and not to manage every area of the globe. As a Western nation, with a Western heritage, we should stick by our Western alliances, but we should also recognize other people's spheres of influence as long as they don't endanger us. The fact is the Russians are better suited geographically and have much more of a strategic interest in countering the threats of Chinese expansion and Islamist Fundamentalism in Central Asia than the U.S. has -- so why give them reason to hate or fear us? This doesn't mean that the U.S. and Russia have to be allies; but we certainly don't have to be enemies.

The Soviet Union was an aggressive, ideological entity bent on world domination and we were right to oppose it. The Soviet Union is gone. Let us strive not to become what we opposed for 70 years.

Personal logo SBminisguy Supporting Member of TMP21 Jun 2021 10:03 a.m. PST

TVAG is on the right track here.

The PLA has published their thoughts on going to war with the US, and from what I have read they feel that Japan had the right idea but didn't go far enough. Japan's action against Pearl Harbor did not deal a knockout blow because the broader US industry and infrastructure was unaffected, allowing America to recover losses quickly.

So the PLA has described how they would apply full spectrum warfare their "Pearl Harbor" attack will be military, cyber, financial and Diplomatic/PR.

1. Infrastructure attacks: Mass cyber and even physical sabotage attacks on CONUS infrastructure to collapse the US communications system, electrical grid, supply chain systems, fuel distribution and transportation systems.

2. Financial attacks: The CCP will attempt to collapse the US economy through economic manipulation, cyber attacks and other financial means perhaps dump all dollar assets and announce a new global reserve currency, etc.

3. Military attacks: A series of massive surprise attacks on Guam (The new Pearl Harbor), other bases, and fleets at sea to inflict as much military damage as possible to the US and allies. This would provide cover for a key military goal like the annexation of Taiwan.

4. Diplomatic/PR: An immediate diplomatic offensive via its belt & Road proxies and allies like North Korea, Russia and Iran, to attack the US as the aggressor in the UN, gain formal support announcements from its allies and condemn US allies. This may or may not include a new "Axis" comprised of China-Russia-North Korea-Iran launching their own pre-emptive military actions to further erode and distract any US and allied response. They will heavily promote the "inevitability" of China's rise to global power, threaten dire pain to those who oppose, tout those who join them, etc.

The goal is to completely overwhelm the US and its allies and ensure a true knock out punch and by the time we recover be presented with a fait accompli, a new world order with the new China Axis in control.

So how do we survive that with the current regime in office? Or does the CCP judge that with the current admin in the White House they can get most of what they want without hard conflict, and will only resort to this if they can no longer count on a pliable, supine America?

Cuprum221 Jun 2021 8:44 p.m. PST

The trouble is that Russia is being pushed into this axis by the United States itself)))
Russia did not seek an alliance with China. Quite the opposite – there was a time when Russia wanted to become a part of NATO.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP21 Jun 2021 9:29 p.m. PST

With Putin on his trone… there is no chance…

Armand

arealdeadone21 Jun 2021 10:09 p.m. PST

China has no force projection capability and its geographic location means it will never be able to truly project force.

This has always been the case.

- Athens access to key Aegean Sea.
- Rome central location in Mediterranean.
- Ottomans access to Black Sea and Mediterranean as well as eventually Indian Ocean
- Great Britain good access to Atlantic
- France access to Atlantic and Mediterranean
- Spain access to Atlantic and Mediterranean
- Portugal access to Atlantic and Mediterranean
- USA dominant access to both Pacific and Atlantic.
- Japan access to Pacific.

There are a couple of exceptions here the Dutch and Venice who have actually poor access to sea (easily blockaded) but who busted out of their constrained areas.


Note both German and Soviets/Russia were heavily hampered by poor access to open oceans. It arguably cost Germany two world wars and it meant USSR/Russia are effectively surrounded.

And also as naval technology got more sophisticated, the access requirements got bigger. Merely access to seas is no longer enough, it has to be access to oceans.

In any case force projection requires access to open oceans/seas. China doesn't have this it's actually ringed by a whole heap of islands. This is a double edged sword it allows China to dominate within the island chains but conversely it means they can be easily encircled.


Eastern East China and Philippine Seas are effectively murder zones for Chinese ships the density of Japanese naval and air assets alone precludes any Chinese force projection.


SC Sea is difficult to send ships through without people noticing and the Chinese can be bottlenecked by pinching off choke points like Malacca Straits.

The only way China will bypass this massive handicap is if the US lets them.


As for Russia it's military is decrepit and primitive (look at poor performance of supposedly elite air force units in Syria). Russia is lucky Europe is effectively disarmed. If I have a flint lock musket and the other guy traded his guided cruise missile for a foam sword, then the flintlock is good enough.

With Putin on his trone… there is no chance…

As I've mentioned many times before, Russia could be totally liberal democratic, disarm itself and bend the knee to USA (as it did in 1990s) and the USA will still hammer it.

It's like the US still hammers away at Cuba despite Cuba posing no threat to USA. US foreign policy is habitual and based on grudges.

Cuprum222 Jun 2021 4:24 a.m. PST

It's funny that many people in the West do not understand that it was the West that created the Putin that he is now.

When Putin came to power in 2000, he made it his task to restore, modernize and stabilize Russia, where poverty and anarchy reigned after the collapse of the USSR. He decided to achieve this through the expansion of political and economic relations with Europe.
Prior to the Ukraine crisis, Putin undertook an unprecedented strengthening of economic ties with Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States. For example, Moscow provided one third of the energy needed by the EU countries. At the same time, thousands of European and American industrialists found a huge sales market in Russia. In addition, in 2013, the Kremlin hired US public relations agency and financial services firm Goldman Sachs to help increase the country's attractiveness to Western investors.
Under Putin, the supply of the NATO group in Afghanistan was carried out through the territory of Russia, the question of creating a US military base in the city of Ulyanovsk was even considered, and joint military exercises were carried out. Moreover, until 2014, Putin was viewed as a full partner by both European and American leaders. He had a good working relationship with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Under Putin, thousands of NGOs and media outlets have operated without hindrance in Russia to promote the Western point of view.

But the West needed to invade Russia's traditional spheres of influence, simply neglect the interests of Russia as a state. It was the West that openly demonstrated that it was not going to reckon with Russian interests in any way (the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, NATO's eastward advance, the deployment of anti-missile systems in Europe, demonstrative support for a violent coup in Ukraine, and much more).

I wonder what the West expected in response to such actions? Absolute obedience?

arealdeadone22 Jun 2021 6:54 a.m. PST

Cuprum2, the goal of the US since 1917 has always been to destroy Russia (except for the little blip of allegiance in 1941-45).

Even when USSR imploded the US merely pit its foot on Russia's throat. No Marshall Plan here – instead a deliberate policy of dismantling Russia as an industrialised country.

Barin122 Jun 2021 7:08 a.m. PST

well, since you understand it (right), don't be surpised that we here see it in similar way…you really don't need a lot of propaganda efforts to form public opinion, you just read the news and everything just adds up.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2021 7:32 a.m. PST

Even when USSR imploded the US merely pit its foot on Russia's throat. No Marshall Plan here
Did I miss something ?

The USA since '92 has given the states of Russian billions …

PDF link

I could think of a 500-1000 places in the USA that could have used those billions … Just say'n …

I am fairly sure the USA no longer gives much $ to Putin's Russia. However, I don't doubt he gets a cut from the hackers he allows and supports. To take $ from the USA. But based on recent events the USA will probably start giving Putin's Russia some $ … again. If they don't already …

Kevin C Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2021 8:39 a.m. PST

The American people and the Russian people can both take pride in their rich cultures and histories. It was very tragic that the Russians had to live under a regime that attempted to dismantle their history, religion and culture for 70 years, and it is equally tragic that there are those in the U.S. who now seek to dismantle American history and culture.

As I said before, the U.S. was right to oppose the Soviets and their vision of international revolution and/or global domination for 70 years. The Bolshevik regime and it's Soviet Empire is gone, and thank God Russia survived. The American people must resist the urge to follow similar self-destructive polices and misguided hopes of international revolutions/ global domination that characterized the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. Let us pray that the U.S. remains a bastion of freedom in the world and that the Russian people preserve their rich culture and enjoy the security and happiness that they deserve.

Again, as I said before, the U.S. should take cyber attacks very seriously and deal with these threats aggressively. However, American policy makers also need to realize that their first obligation is to the American people and not to manage every area of the globe. As a Western nation, with a Western heritage, we should stick by our Western alliances, but we should also recognize other people's (including the Russians') spheres of influence as long as they don't endanger us. The fact is the Russians are better suited geographically and have much more of a strategic interest in countering the threats of Chinese expansion and Islamist Fundamentalism in Central Asia than the U.S. has -- so why give them reason to hate or fear us? This doesn't mean that the U.S. and Russia have to be allies; but we certainly don't have to be enemies.

Because we are getting very close to breaking the no politics rule, I will save further comments for the Blue Fez. That said, I would like to invite Cuprum2 and Barin1 to the Blue Fez. While discussions on the Blue Fez do get fairly heated at times, both of you seem to have thick skins (that is a complement) and make arguments supported by reason and evidence. Most members of the Blue Fez are Americans (of all political shades), so it would be nice to have new members that have different perspectives and insights and who can add to the conversations.

Kevin

Barin122 Jun 2021 9:04 a.m. PST

Legion 4, devil is in details.
Your document specifies total help as 28 bil between 1992 and 2007 for ALL FSU states, not only Russia.
If you look at the split, it will be mostly for "democratisation", help with revamping of economy which was mostly carried by Western consultants (i.e money returned to the country of origin) resulting in epic failure, security (like safety fo nuclear weapons, etc).
Now your current military budget was 1.92 trillion U.S. dollars in 2019 only.
Speaks volume on what was really meant to achieve with this help…

arealdeadone22 Jun 2021 3:53 p.m. PST

could think of a 500-1000 places in the USA that could have used those billions … Just say'n …

Firstly as Barin said those figures include all of the former Soviet Union and not just Russia, so everywhere from Latvia to Ukraine to Krygyzstan.

A lot of it was tied to dismantling nuclear weapons or stabilising currencies to prevent total collapse.


Secondly the 1990s Russian component of those billions were tied to very specific reforms that were designed to deindustrialise Russia. US' flunky, the IMF, was very clear on this it viewed the future of Russia as an agricultural and resource extraction country, not an industrial power.

In essence the whole thing wasn't designed to help Russia achieve its place among nations like Japan, Germany etc, it was designed to turn Russia into another Nigeria or Venezuela.


Note the Americans had a similar plan for post-WWII Germany, the Morgenthau Plan. It was rejected because it was realised it would cripple European growth and not create stability.

But because the American elites hate Russia, they tried to enact it for Russia.

Little wonder the Russians eventually pushed back after the western patsy, Yeltsin, died.


---


As for how this relates to war – well current wars in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, Armenia-Azerbaijan etc are heavily influenced by this.

It's also what is creating military build ups and frictions in the Baltic Sea.

arealdeadone22 Jun 2021 4:02 p.m. PST

As for Russia v NATO, I suspect even Russia's decayed and primitive military would steamroll the largely disarmed NATO European countries with relative ease.

How far they got would be reliant on whatever resistance is put up, what the Russian objectives are and at what point the Americans decide to threaten with tactical nukes.


The American military in Europe is (RIGHTFULLY) severely lacking in ground forces – rotations of brigades/battalions plus one one airborne brigade, an aviation brigade and single Stryker regiment.


The Air Forces are reasonably powerful by European standards – about 150 F-15/16/A-10s (soon to be complemented by F-35s) but lacking in dedicated electronic warfare assets.


If NATO got more serious about defence and invested a bit more wisely, the US presence wouldn't even be needed. But major players like Germany, Poland* and France are extremely weak militarily and offer little or no deterrence capability.

The Alliance is also crippled politically and it is debatable whether Article 5 would be enacted especially if the war is started by American interventionism in Ukraine or Georgia.

*Large mainly obsolete army, dwindling modernised air force.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2021 4:54 p.m. PST

Legion 4, devil is in details.
Yes it is, I read article … but much of $ could have been better spent at "home", IMO. Of course I feel that way about much of the US aid to foreign nations. And yes I do understand the bigger geopolitical picture. And generally why the US spends that money … Whether I like it or agree or not. The US gov't does not ask my opinion … never did … 😁

arealdeadone … as I said to Barin … You know I'm an old Cold War Warrior. old fart If the USA put it's "needs" before e.g. Russia … that is OK with me. But again there are geopolitical considerations.

And I have said this before. We should not supported the Muj in A'stan against the USSR. Just go with the original CIA plan of letting them bleed each other out. But the USA wanted payback for the USSR's support of the NVA, etc., etc.

Hindsight it 20/20 … and again A'stan is still a mess and IMO "unfixable" …

Plus most likely the US & Russia will never "BFFs" … just say'n …

arealdeadone22 Jun 2021 5:21 p.m. PST

If the USA put it's "needs" before e.g. Russia … that is OK with me.

Dunno how agitating in Ukraine or Georgia is putting US needs before Russia? Or trying to destroy Syria by tacitly supporting Islamists before it got out of hand. Or destroying Libya for no reason (again showing Russia, Iran etc that the west cannot be trusted).

Or indeed expanding NATO eastward and trying to destroy effectiveness of Russian nuclear deterrent (which makes war far more plausible).


US policy has been illogical for decades. Indeed training Muj in Afghanistan to fight Soviets makes far more sense than anything US has done since 1992. At least that was the Cold War.

arealdeadone22 Jun 2021 9:40 p.m. PST

China is becoming a bogeyman/scapegoat for Australia the Australian government has blamed the Chinese for a UNESCO ruling on the dying Great Barrier Reef.

link

link

The real truth is Australia is shirking environmental responsibility (as witnessed at latest G7 meeting).

But China is handy for Australia – it now doesn't mater what the reality is, the Chinese will be blamed by an Australian government that doesn't want to responsibility.

Of course that leads to a deterioration of ties even further and makes military action more probable.

The Australian people are wary of China and don't want war, but members of government are actively promoting militarisation of the dispute.

link

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jun 2021 10:41 p.m. PST

By the way…

Russian Forces Block US Military Patrol In Northeast Syria For Not Giving Prior Notice As Per Disengagement Agreements


YouTube link

link

Armand

Cuprum223 Jun 2021 3:49 a.m. PST

This happens regularly. Up to fistfights and deliberate collisions of cars.
The guys have fun. Just do not send women on patrol – in our country, hitting a woman is considered an unworthy act. We'll have to give way to the ladies)))

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP23 Jun 2021 3:08 p.m. PST

Dunno how agitating in Ukraine or Georgia is putting US needs before Russia? Or trying to destroy Syria by tacitly supporting Islamists before it got out of hand. Or destroying Libya for no reason (again showing Russia, Iran etc that the west cannot be trusted).
The US Gov't and military don't email me and tell me who, what, why, etc. And as I have said much of what is being planning to be done is classified.

This happens regularly. Up to fistfights and deliberate collisions of cars.
The guys have fun.
Nothing new really just like when the Russians buzz US aircraft and vessels. Or come very close to a US border in the air or even the sea … Or vis versa …

Cold War 2.0 …

arealdeadone23 Jun 2021 4:00 p.m. PST

And as I have said much of what is being planning to be done is classified.

It doesn't take a Q Clearance level to work out US strategy is designed to encircle Russia. In fact this doctrine has been publicly known for 74 years and is known as the Truman Doctrine.

Cuprum223 Jun 2021 6:27 p.m. PST

Here are just of communism in Russia no more than 30 years. Which gives reason to believe that in the 1st Cold War it was not about the war against communism, but about the war against the Russians)))

arealdeadone23 Jun 2021 6:43 p.m. PST

Which gives reason to believe that in the 1st Cold War it was not about the war against communism, but about the war against the Russians

Given America entered a partnership with Mao's even more fanatically Communist China in 1971, it certainly means that Communism was never the real threat.


Communism might have been the threat in 1949 but by 1970 it has just coalesced to Russia.


And even if Russia collapsed completely, the Americans would still be there pouring salt on the ruins and ensuring Russia could never rise again, even if Chinese tanks were bearing down on Washington.

The American elites hatred of Russia is on par with Shia/Sunni hatred of each other. Even Serb-Croat hatred doesn't run that deep.


The reasons for Russophonbia in west and especially USA are unclear despite some trying to answer it:

link

link

link

link

But American Russophobia has been described as pathological by some commentators it has no rational basis but it is the clearly a key part of the American definition of Russia and Russians and certainly informs attitudes.

---

It leads to completely irrational decision making eg US displays horror and issues sanctions for poisoning of Alexei Navalny yet Saudi Arabia can murder and carve up a political opponent in their own embassy and the US still supports them.

USAFpilot23 Jun 2021 7:12 p.m. PST

"Will A US War Against China Or Russia Be A Short Or A Long"

Wars are always longer than expected. Even the short ones like Gulf War 1 in 1991. It took us another decade+ to finally finish the job and really mess up Iraq.

Kevin C Supporting Member of TMP23 Jun 2021 7:41 p.m. PST

Cuprum2,

As I noted earlier, The American people and the Russian people can both take pride in their rich cultures and histories. It was very tragic that the Russians had to live under a regime that attempted to dismantle their history, religion and culture for 70 years, and it is equally tragic that there are those in the U.S. who now seek to dismantle American history and culture. If one looks closely, you will find that often those in the U.S. government and entertainment industry that fan hatred of Russia are the same individuals who attempt to rewrite American history and undermine American culture. But rest assured that there are still many of us who can separate our hatred for Communism from our opinions of Russia and the Russian people; just as we separate our hatred of Nazism from our opinion of Germany and the German people. In fact you will find that those in this country who are against antagonizing Russia the most are the very same people who were the boldest enemies of the former Soviet Union. Take, for example, perhaps one of the most influential Cold Warriors of the 1980s Pat Buchanan: link

Perun Gromovnik23 Jun 2021 11:05 p.m. PST

Interesting part of history, it tells us how propaganda works together with paranoia

TMP link

backstab24 Jun 2021 2:42 a.m. PST

The Chicom/Russian trolls are active today

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP24 Jun 2021 9:10 a.m. PST

Here … on TMP ?

Kevin C Supporting Member of TMP25 Jun 2021 5:43 a.m. PST

Before people keep talking too much smack agsinst the Russians, I do want to point out that they produce some excellent miniatures. I just had an order of Russian manufactured miniatures arrive that I purchased via minifigs and they are some of the best quality miniatures that I have bought in recent years. Here is a link to the manufacturer and you can judge for yourself: link

I would encourage others to purchase some of these miniatures as well and maybe we can help promote the blessings of capitalism in Russia.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP25 Jun 2021 8:47 a.m. PST

Good point ! And a little Capitalism is a good thing …💰💸 Wonder if Putin is getting a piece of the action ? 🤩😆😎

Pages: 1 2 3