Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[AZrailwhale]

Russia's resolve to exist intact as a superpower hasn't changed.

And specifically, Russia has not failed to honour any agreements as long as America has done likewise.

But America didn't do likewise and it chose military aggression against Russia that has resluted in Russia's turning to defensive measures.

Try to sell that to Eastern European and Baltic countries that the Soviets installed communist dictatorships in rather than having open elections as agreed upon in summit meetings between Stalin, Churchill and FDR. You'll get laughed out of the room.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are talking nonsense, if Russia had invaded Ukraine once they wouldn't need to do it a second time, and the Georgia war was started by that tie munching moron Saackashvili encouraged once again by the US, he got a spanking and Rusia doesn't occupy Georgia, as for Moldova i don't know what you are on about, sorry no cigar.

Wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea. Then they invaded Georgia and seized South Ossetia. Then Russia went back to Ukraine and tried for the entire country and failed.

 

[AlexanderPK]

The US army? Is that the one with those generals who identify themselves as cats and dogs and where that chick with multiple moms enlisted? I've heard you don't have to be fit anymore there, all you need is to be tolerant and body positive. I guess you won't even have to shoot either, just sue the Russian soldier who called you a faggot and the war is over.

 

[Donald H]

Try to sell that to Eastern European and Baltic countries that the Soviets installed communist dictatorships in rather than having open elections as agreed upon in summit meetings between Stalin, Churchill and FDR. You'll get laughed out of the room.

In addition to RFK junior's expose' on American aggression, there is the issue of WW2 reparations to the Soviet Union's defeat of Nazi Germany.

What country among the Nazi collaborators would not feel resentful?
You've raised a good point that is deserving of discussion.
But first we're going to deal with RFK junior's factual analysis of the current US war against Russia.

 

[ESay]

It would not surprise me if when the current conflict ends, Ukraine joins NATO. And that is entirely because of the actions of Russia

The current conflict ends? And what will mark this 'end'? 2014 borders, or that of 1991, or regime change in Russia, or Russia breaking apart, or ...?

 

[Mushroom]

Your problem is like other who support the Regime in Kiev you have ignored everything that happened since the coup in 2014, only when Russia took action did you get your knickers in a twist, you didn't say a damn thing when civilians in Donetsk were shelled every day by Ukrianian Nazis.

Who says I support the government?

You like so many have a major "black and white" thinking problem.

And 2014 was not a coup, it was a revolution. There is a major difference between the two. And a major issue was the restoration of the 2004 Constitution, which had been set aside and replaced by a "Constitutional Court" that was appointed by the then President. And only then "Russia took action"? Oh yes, invading and annexing a major part of a country is really "taking action".

 

[Mushroom]

You are talking nonsense, if Russia had invaded Ukraine once they wouldn't need to do it a second time

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, complete nonsense. It never happened.

 

[Mushroom]

The current conflict ends? And what will mark this 'end'? 2014 borders, or that of 1991, or regime change in Russia, or Russia breaking apart, or ...?

That is ultimately between Ukraine, Russia, and whatever nation or body they pick to mediate the terms of the end of the conflict.

But if it was up to me, it would be restoration based on the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty. Where Russia gave up all claims on Ukraine and agreed to the borders both nations set forth at that time. As well as the 1993 agreements between Russia and Georgia as to their borders.

 

[ESay]

That is ultimately between Ukraine, Russia, and whatever nation or body they pick to mediate the terms of the end of the conflict.

But if it was up to me, it would be restoration based on the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty. Where Russia gave up all claims on Ukraine and agreed to the borders both nations set forth at that time. As well as the 1993 agreements between Russia and Georgia as to their borders.

Russia won't agree on ceding those territories back to Ukraine (they are already in Russian constitution) and Ukraine won't agree on formally recognizing them as part of Russia.

Ukraine sees membership in NATO (or at least close cooperation with it) as a vital part of its security. Russia sees any NATO involvement in Ukraine's policy as a direct threat to its national security.

Ukraine views the West, that supports Ukraine's stance, as a main mediator while Russia is more inclined towards China and some nations of the 'Global South'.

You see, there is no ground for 'peace agreement' at all.

 

[Mushroom]

In addition to RFK junior's expose' on American aggression

Why you keep bringing him up ad nauseum I have no idea.

The guy is a freaking nutcase. A major conspiracy nut and anti-vaxxer. He is one of the leaders for pushing that vaccines cause autism and dozens of other diseases, and also do no good and only exist to steal money for pharmaceutical companies. That the oil companies run the EPA, and "Big Pharma" owns the FDA. That the rich are destroying the Middle Class to create new wage slaves. That a new tax be created to take 2-5% every year of the net worth of everybody with a net worth of $50 million or more.

And even more insane, you might want to dial down your screaming of "NATO expansion", ad Junior wants to see Russia become a member of NATO, while at the same time allowing Russia to keep what they hold of Ukraine already as well as forbidding Ukraine from joining NATO.

Oh, and that we should also stop all missile defense programs, and end any agreements we have for missile defense anywhere in the world.

Of course, the guy is a freaking nutcase with a side order of granola. The very fact that he screams about "NATO Expansion", and yet at the same time wants to have Russia join yet forbid Ukraine from joining should show to almost anybody that the guy is doing little but trying to be a Populist like President Trump, but failing miserably because he is catering to the fringe nutcases even more than the former President ever did.

So your bringing him up over and over again is doing you no favors at all. Even most of his famous political family has pretty much dismissed him. And that is not even touching on his decades long war against Bill Gates, and his being a major spreader of 5G nonsense as well as claiming that the US created COVID, denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS, that vaccines cause allergies, that his father and uncle were killed by government operatives, that gender dysphoria is caused by chemicals placed in the water, and a thousand other nutcase theories.

 

[Concerned American]

Biden's justicactions can be modelled according to America's needs

English isn't your first language, is it duck?

 

[Mushroom]

Russia won't agree on ceding those territories back to Ukraine (they are already in Russian constitution) and Ukraine won't agree on formally recognizing them as part of Russia.

That is a huge assumption, based entirely upon the conditions of the current time.

I have been saying this for over a year and a half now, that Russia is not as stable as many seem to believe. The two day Wagner Group rebellion should have driven home to people that things are not as secure as many believe.

One of the outcomes I am actually leaning towards is an internal change in their government, either through a coup or popular uprising. And that outcome is not without precedence, as that is exactly what happened during WWI to cause both Russia and Germany to pull out of the World War. Both countries entered that war very strong, yet by 1917 and 1918 both were rife with internal dissent and the governments collapsed. And in both cases the new governments that came in called it quits and sued for peace.

With the cutting off of almost all trade with the outside world, the internal economy of the nation is on shaky ground. Far worse than it had ever been even at the height of the Cold War. And over the past year I have been watching them, and their brutal crackdowns on internal dissent and the failure to end the war is making the government unrest grow. So you are making a mistake in assuming that it would be President Putin negotiating an end to the conflict.

 

[ESay]

That is a huge assumption, based entirely upon the conditions of the current time.

I have been saying this for over a year and a half now, that Russia is not as stable as many seem to believe. The two day Wagner Group rebellion should have driven home to people that things are not as secure as many believe.

One of the outcomes I am actually leaning towards is an internal change in their government, either through a coup or popular uprising. And that outcome is not without precedence, as that is exactly what happened during WWI to cause both Russia and Germany to pull out of the World War. Both countries entered that war very strong, yet by 1917 and 1918 both were rife with internal dissent and the governments collapsed. And in both cases the new governments that came in called it quits and sued for peace.

With the cutting off of almost all trade with the outside world, the internal economy of the nation is on shaky ground. Far worse than it had ever been even at the height of the Cold War. And over the past year I have been watching them, and their brutal crackdowns on internal dissent and the failure to end the war is making the government unrest grow. So you are making a mistake in assuming that it would be President Putin negotiating an end to the conflict.

Oh, you are expecting the regime change. I see. And for how long are you ready to wait? A year, two, five, ten?

I think that Russia will follow the way of Iran. Harsh sanctions caused not the regime change, but growing oppression, curbing civil rights and crack down on any political opposition (though it is already a given).

 

[Deadstick]

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, complete nonsense. It never happened.

Securing Crimea is not invading Ukraine, they secured it to stop the coup criminals in Kiev handing Sevastopol over to Nato.

 

[Deadstick]

Wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea. Then they invaded Georgia and seized South Ossetia. Then Russia went back to Ukraine and tried for the entire country and failed.

There were Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia along with Georgians, then the tie munching moron launched a midnight Blitzkrieg killing some of them and civilians he was dealt with, and Rusia didn't try and occupy all Ukraine thats just bollocks.

 

[Mushroom]

Oh, you are expecting the regime change. I see. And for how long are you ready to wait? A year, two, five, ten?

That is not what I said. However, it is a likely outcome.

Iran was never under the kind of sanctions that Russia is under. And they have never been under the kind of one man rule that Russia is under now. Even under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the government after the Islamic Revolution was not a single man rule but by a panel of 82 (now 88) jurists who operate along the lines of both a legislature and a Supreme Court. The government may be brutal, but the leadership had never been that totalitarian and entirely in the hands of a single person, even under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini or their current Supreme Leader or President.

Russia on the other hand is very much run by a single individual, and that is far more unstable than even a brutal government run essentially by a committee. It would be more akin to compare the rule of Russia today to that of Stalin's USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, or General Franco's Spain (who is still after 48 years in a valiant struggle to remain dead). In each of those when the leader died, their government did not last much longer. And after Stalin, the government of the USSR did not collapse but it did take a strong shift into another direction.

 

[Mushroom]

Securing Crimea is not invading Ukraine, they secured it to stop the coup criminals in Kiev handing Sevastopol over to Nato.

By that strange definition, then I guess the US would be fully entitled to invade Mexico in order to remove the naro-terrorists that are controlling large parts of the country now.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Mushroom
Nations are flocking to NATO purely because of the past history of the Soviet Union and now Russia in invading.

And rightly so.

When you commit an act of national prostitution, when you rent your national territory to serve the geopolitical interests of foreign powers in exchange for protection, endangering the national security of your neighbors you run the risk of finding yourself on the receiving end of their bombs, specially when all the diplomatic efforts are exhausted.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Securing Crimea is not invading Ukraine, they secured it to stop the coup criminals in Kiev handing Sevastopol over to Nato.

NATO doesn't need Sevastopol. The Black Sea is and always has been a military backwater. It's only value to Russia is that it is ice free year-round.

 

[ESay]

That is not what I said. However, it is a likely outcome.

Iran was never under the kind of sanctions that Russia is under. And they have never been under the kind of one man rule that Russia is under now. Even under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the government after the Islamic Revolution was not a single man rule but by a panel of 82 (now 88) jurists who operate along the lines of both a legislature and a Supreme Court. The government may be brutal, but the leadership had never been that totalitarian and entirely in the hands of a single person, even under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini or their current Supreme Leader or President.

Russia on the other hand is very much run by a single individual, and that is far more unstable than even a brutal government run essentially by a committee. It would be more akin to compare the rule of Russia today to that of Stalin's USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, or General Franco's Spain (who is still after 48 years in a valiant struggle to remain dead). In each of those when the leader died, their government did not last much longer. And after Stalin, the government of the USSR did not collapse but it did take a strong shift into another direction.

I see, so the plan is to 'wait' for the time when Putin loses the power for one reason or another. Okay, my previous question still stands - for how long are you going to wait? One year, three years, five, ten ...?