Russia vs US

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Russia vs US

Post by Sertorio » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:06 am

Russia cryptically threatens to destroy US warships, warplanes that attack Syria

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/br ... ack-syria/

BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:41 P.M.) – The Russian military has cryptically – yet very clearly – threatened to attack US warships and warplanes which conduct missile strikes that threaten its forces in Syria.

In the latest statement to be made by Russian military officials over possible US strikes against Syrian government forces, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, General Valery Gerasimov, stated:

‘In case there is a threat to the lives of our military [by US missile strikes], the Russian Armed Force will take retaliatory measures both over the missiles and carriers that will use them.’

The reference to ‘carriers’ though vague is still quite clear. Gerasimov is talking about US warships and aircraft that fire the ‘missiles’ against Syrian government targets and de facto threaten the lives of Russian service personnel stationed on duty in the Arab republic.
I don't know whether Russia will have the balls to make good on that threat, but I guess that sooner or later they will do it. Not likely to be the beginning of WW III, but lots of assets on both sides will be destroyed. We will then see who has the better weapons...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Russia vs US

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:34 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:06 am
Russia cryptically threatens to destroy US warships, warplanes that attack Syria

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/br ... ack-syria/

BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:41 P.M.) – The Russian military has cryptically – yet very clearly – threatened to attack US warships and warplanes which conduct missile strikes that threaten its forces in Syria.

In the latest statement to be made by Russian military officials over possible US strikes against Syrian government forces, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, General Valery Gerasimov, stated:

‘In case there is a threat to the lives of our military [by US missile strikes], the Russian Armed Force will take retaliatory measures both over the missiles and carriers that will use them.’

The reference to ‘carriers’ though vague is still quite clear. Gerasimov is talking about US warships and aircraft that fire the ‘missiles’ against Syrian government targets and de facto threaten the lives of Russian service personnel stationed on duty in the Arab republic.
I don't know whether Russia will have the balls to make good on that threat, but I guess that sooner or later they will do it. Not likely to be the beginning of WW III, but lots of assets on both sides will be destroyed. We will then see who has the better weapons...
Should push ever come to shove, the Americans have better technology, but the Russians have more resolve. Either way, though, the only winning move is not to play.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Russia vs US

Post by neverfail » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:43 pm

I think that I now understand better why Russia holds The West in deep suspicion.

It was pointed out last night by one of our foreign affairs boffins on a TV current affairs program. It seems that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union President Bill Clinton entered into an agreement with Boris Yeltsin, first president of the fledgling Russian Federation, that he would not move NATO closer to Russia's borders by incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries into this organisation. Clinton subsequently double crossed Yeltsin and Russia by doing just that.

This characterless individual proved to be just as untrustworthy in his conduct of US foreign policy as he was in maintaining his marriage vows with Hillary (if any reader recalls Monica Lewinsky and the others).

Plenty of Russians are convinced that the West is out to get Russia. Led by the United States the West, in the early 1990's had the unique opportunity to put Russian fears to rest simply by conducting itself honourably in its dealings with Russia. Instead, it blew the singular opportunity to put relations with Russia permanently on a friendly footing because the USA had elected a moral pygmy into high office.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1892
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia vs US

Post by cassowary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:41 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:43 pm
I think that I now understand better why Russia holds The West in deep suspicion.

It was pointed out last night by one of our foreign affairs boffins on a TV current affairs program. It seems that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union President Bill Clinton entered into an agreement with Boris Yeltsin, first president of the fledgling Russian Federation, that he would not move NATO closer to Russia's borders by incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries into this organisation. Clinton subsequently double crossed Yeltsin and Russia by doing just that.

This characterless individual proved to be just as untrustworthy in his conduct of US foreign policy as he was in maintaining his marriage vows with Hillary (if any reader recalls Monica Lewinsky and the others).

Plenty of Russians are convinced that the West is out to get Russia. Led by the United States the West, in the early 1990's had the unique opportunity to put Russian fears to rest simply by conducting itself honourably in its dealings with Russia. Instead, it blew the singular opportunity to put relations with Russia permanently on a friendly footing because the USA had elected a moral pygmy into high office.
They should have invited Russia to join NATO.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Russia vs US

Post by Jim the Moron » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:33 am

"Parasitism and the fight for the wrong century"
https://www.techcrunch.com/2018/04/01/r ... g-century/

"Militaries around the world are constructed primarily for national defense against an invading, conquering force, but invading and conquering territory makes no sense anymore." Probably true, but I can think of exceptions - e.g.Thailand's substantial military is constructed primarily for:
1. Enforcing control by the elite/royal family-backed military dictatorship over working-class Thais.
2. Embedding corrupt procurement practices aimed at enriching military brass.

"Wealth and power are no longer remotely related to how much real estate or raw materials you control." Well, that may be true in regards to wealth, but power? The three most powerful nations - USA, China, and Russia - also possess considerable acreage within their borders.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Russia vs US

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:26 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:33 am
"Parasitism and the fight for the wrong century"
https://www.techcrunch.com/2018/04/01/r ... g-century/

"Militaries around the world are constructed primarily for national defense against an invading, conquering force, but invading and conquering territory makes no sense anymore." Probably true, but I can think of exceptions - e.g.Thailand's substantial military is constructed primarily for:
1. Enforcing control by the elite/royal family-backed military dictatorship over working-class Thais.
2. Embedding corrupt procurement practices aimed at enriching military brass.

"Wealth and power are no longer remotely related to how much real estate or raw materials you control." Well, that may be true in regards to wealth, but power? The three most powerful nations - USA, China, and Russia - also possess considerable acreage within their borders.
And yet Brazil, Canada, and Australia pale in comparison.

I think a comparison of GDP per capita supports the idea that a bounty of natural resources, while helpful, isn't a requirement for prosperity.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply