Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Doubt it.

    It's too expensive, and there's nothing to gain.

    A war of that magnitude would cripple both sides economies.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    You mean re-open the mines?
    In the event of war that would be guaranteed in countries getting Russian gas.

    (Original post by Rick M)
    Any areas voting to leave Ukraine would be allowed to form their own new nation - prob a Russian satellite. Everyone wins.
    How does the west win?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    So? We have other fuels.

    If he starts a shooting war, he loses. Simple as that. And he knows that, which is why it's never going to happen.
    These other fuels won't last 10 years, science had proved this.
    Plus, China and all the Brics nations are with Putin, I'd say the West would be pretty much f*cked in terms of war but who whats a war? No one. And nobody starts a war because they want it to happen but because it escalates into the conflict and its relatively uncontrollable. May I remind that Hitler didn't actually start WW2 (yes he provoked) but it was Britain and France who declared it. Let's face it, if they hadn't declared it there would be no war, yes we'd all be speaking German right now but there would have been no war.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    These other fuels wont last 10 years, science had proved this.
    Plus, China and all the Brics nations are with Putin, I'd say the West would be pretty much f*cked in terms of war but who whats a war? No one. And anybody starts a war because they want it to happen but because it escalates into the conflict and its relatively uncontrollable. May I remind that Hitler did actually start WW2 (yes he provoked) but it was Britain and France who declared it. Let's face it, if they hadn't declared it there would be no war, yes we'd all be speaking German right now but there would have been no war.
    We've got at least 30 years worth of coal under the UK. The only reason we're not mining it is because it's expensive to get. But, if in a pinch, we could restart mining and be relatively self sufficient.

    Appeasement is a shoddy and ridiculous stance to take.

    And the notion that everyone is with Putin is nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Putin won't go to war because he'd lose. Yes because nobody has ever sacrificed themselves before for a cause and to cause as much chaos as they could before they went. Putin is old now and would probably love nothing more than to leave a legacy of killing thousands, if not millons, of people.

    Putin is 61 and his time may very well be up soon. Why not engage in a war out of spite and take some of the enemy with you? Putin and Russia could cut off supplies and cause chaos then invade eastern EU countries. Yes the UK and USA would response but that comes as a negative to their economies.

    Putin will do as he pleases. He wouldn't be the first person to go on what would be regarded as a suicide mission or to enter a war they're expected to lose.

    Putin dies being dictated to by the West and he will lose face and will have lost, in his eyes. He dies and has caused carnage in the name of his cause and has delivered both a humanitarian and economic blow to the enemy and he will see that as a win.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    We've got at least 30 years worth of coal under the UK. The only reason we're not mining it is because it's expensive to get. But, if in a pinch, we could restart mining and be relatively self sufficient.

    Appeasement is a shoddy and ridiculous stance to take.

    And the notion that everyone is with Putin is nonsense.
    It takes FUEL to extract FUEL lol that's the catch. And your right, its extremely expensive but by that time the economies would probably collapse so there no money and no point, moreover England has moved away from coal so moving back might be a problem. This cannot be done quickly and easily.

    Appeasement may have been a shoddy excuse but I personally believe so many people wouldn't have died if there was no war. Plus, there is no appeasement going on, Crimea held a referendum and wanted to join Russia, its basic democracy. What the media here say it was an 'annexation against their will' is utter BS.

    I disagree, the notion is true and I believe the West is ****ting their pants right now because a lot of the third world has a huge grudge against the West from all the unfair exploitation of resources, slavery colonisation etc
    So the West may not be with Putin, but the rest of the world certainly is and it is very powerful.

    War is a ridiculous option. But it is ridiculous the say 'Putin will lose, he is too weak' we really must see the truth as it is.
    Edit* psssssh 30 yrs is nothing
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    It takes FUEL to extract FUEL lol that's the catch. And your right, its extremely expensive but by that time the economies would probably collapse so there no money and no point, moreover England has moved away from coal so moving back might be a problem. This cannot be done quickly and easily.

    I disagree, the notion is true and I believe the West is ****ting their pants right now because a lot of the third world has a huge grudge against the West from all the unfair exploitation of resources, slavery colonisation etc
    So the West may not be with Putin, but the rest of the world certainly is and it is very powerful.
    Majority of the big power stations in the UK are coal fired. Ramping up their production by putting more coal through them, while problematic, isn't quite as bad as having a total blackout.

    Prove it, then. Show us where it states that China et al are with Russia.


    The world will not see a major war again while economic practises remain as they are, everyone is too entwined with each other, when one loses, everyone loses.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Majority of the big power stations in the UK are coal fired. Ramping up their production by putting more coal through them, while problematic, isn't quite as bad as having a total blackout.

    Prove it, then. Show us where it states that China et al are with Russia.


    The world will not see a major war again while economic practises remain as they are, everyone is too entwined with each other, when one loses, everyone loses.
    China just signed a billion $ gas deal and refused to impose sanctions on Russia, it is one of the Brics nations which held a summit recently and all were in favour of Putin plus China HATES the US..http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/78920...#axzz38gLYKspi I could honestly make you a whole case on how they are united but I'm too lazy.

    Yes everyone is too entwined I agree and it would be a horrible consequence to all. You have to realise, not everyone is equal. The West barely has any resources, why do you think it has been exploiting the third world for so long? Do you realise how bad it would be without resources for the West? Because the Third World would only stop receiving money and aid etc but it would have all its resources intact.

    Imagine the worst case scenario; you have no food. Yes I do realise the West still produces some foods but it uses third world raw materials to grow it. For example, the cows and sheep you see grazing on the grass, their diet does not consist of grass anymore in fact they would die out on that diet because the grass has lost a lot of its nutrition from pollution like acid rain etc so food needs to be imported from the third world to feed those animals.
    The West has become almost wholly dependent on third world raw materials for ages now and it would not last very long without them.

    What if that third world unites and decides to trade between itself?? And not give anything to the West?
    Of course they would suffer but not as much as the West will.

    That's the reality.

    All the factories would be in China
    All the resources like food in the third world
    While all the fuel and other resources in Russia

    It looks like a pretty effective collaboration to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Poooooooooooooooooooooootin
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mochassassin)
    Pootin though. :hahaha:
    Ironically that's actually closer to the proper Russian pronunciation, rather than the 'pyew-tin' that tends to get used in the West...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    These other fuels won't last 10 years, science had proved this.
    Plus, China and all the Brics nations are with Putin, I'd say the West would be pretty much f*cked in terms of war but who whats a war? No one. And nobody starts a war because they want it to happen but because it escalates into the conflict and its relatively uncontrollable. May I remind that Hitler didn't actually start WW2 (yes he provoked) but it was Britain and France who declared it. Let's face it, if they hadn't declared it there would be no war, yes we'd all be speaking German right now but there would have been no war.
    We have Tonnes of coal, inflation is a small price to pay to fuel the war machine.

    Let us not forget that in the event of war, Russia has as much to lose from not being able to trade outside Asia (we have naval superiority and their ships would be fired upon - naval power means a better chance of EU-US trade being protected than Russian exports to anywhere outside Asia).

    Ignoring South Africa who barely have an army, Brazil and India will not back Russia, no chance. Brazil would only back China but as said before, China won't damage their export markets. India would frankly be more likely to fight with the west than Russia.

    The two main ground fronts would be one in the Middle East (Russia would move south via Iran creating a front between Iran and Turkey/Israel) and also a front along a line from Eastern Poland to Italy. Probably more fighting in western Turkey as well.

    The main naval fronts would be in the Atlantic but more interestingly in the eastern Med and entrance to the Black Sea. Trade could go from eastern Russia but the Pacific and Indian Oceans would easily be controlled by the west.

    The air front from both sides would decimate eastern Europe and Western Russia along with those tiny states near the eastern Black Sea. Its hard not to see even Europe alone winning given how much more advanced the air forces of western Europe are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
    Ironically that's actually closer to the proper Russian pronunciation, rather than the 'pyew-tin' that tends to get used in the West...
    Thank you for that delectable sliver of information, darling. I'll keep that in mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In the event of war that would be guaranteed in countries getting Russian gas.



    How does the west win?
    The West wins because the rest of Ukraine will be stable and more pro-Western. it will be more EU-aligned and Russian influence will be gone from it for good.
    The small areas which do leave Ukraine (only parts of Donetsk and Luhansk) would be a very small price to pay for the West.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Russia will also no longer be able to keep claiming more and more of Ukraine like they did in Crimea and now the East. Because there was a fair referendum.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We have Tonnes of coal, inflation is a small price to pay to fuel the war machine.

    Let us not forget that in the event of war, Russia has as much to lose from not being able to trade outside Asia (we have naval superiority and their ships would be fired upon - naval power means a better chance of EU-US trade being protected than Russian exports to anywhere outside Asia).

    Ignoring South Africa who barely have an army, Brazil and India will not back Russia, no chance. Brazil would only back China but as said before, China won't damage their export markets. India would frankly be more likely to fight with the west than Russia.

    The two main ground fronts would be one in the Middle East (Russia would move south via Iran creating a front between Iran and Turkey/Israel) and also a front along a line from Eastern Poland to Italy. Probably more fighting in western Turkey as well.

    The main naval fronts would be in the Atlantic but more interestingly in the eastern Med and entrance to the Black Sea. Trade could go from eastern Russia but the Pacific and Indian Oceans would easily be controlled by the west.

    The air front from both sides would decimate eastern Europe and Western Russia along with those tiny states near the eastern Black Sea. Its hard not to see even Europe alone winning given how much more advanced the air forces of western Europe are.
    India has already backed Russia, the new government down there has changed its attitude. It is now a Brics nation.
    Brazil has already backed Russia, Putin was there for the Brics conference a few weeks ago.
    Israel is refused to impose sanctions on Russia and Turkey has joined the Eurasian union and exited the EU association. So both back Russia.
    Entrance to the back sea is now off limits because Russia and Turkey control a large portion. As with the Easter Med sea, Cyprus, Israel, Syria Turkey etc all supporters of Russia occupy those zones. The US was trying to buy its way into Cyprus recently but they sent them off.

    I'm sorry to offend but have you been catching up with the news lately? Western military is well advanced but so is Russias and the Chinese so I think your quite distracted by saying 'Europe would win on its own'.

    Also, there does not have to be a war, once the third world cuts off the Wests resources, on what resources will it carry out its attack?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    So? We have other fuels.

    If he starts a shooting war, he loses. Simple as that. And he knows that, which is why it's never going to happen.
    inaccurate.Britain's with only 12% russian oil within its energy mix...The European nations are much more highly dependent on Russian gas AND oil(some nations' dependence exceeds 50% even). Furthermore,Russia is actually Europe main supplier of gas and oil.
    And why is everyone blatantly ignoring the vast military contrast between the two? The era when western men could actually fight is long gone. If unorganized mountain goats in Afghanistan can be a struggle i really don't see how tackling the country who actually invests in its military significantly is even making any sense.Heck,more than half of Europe doesn't even have a standing army to speak of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P357)
    inaccurate.Britain's with only 12% russian oil within its energy mix...The European nations are much more highly dependent on Russian gas AND oil(some nations' dependence exceeds 50% even). Furthermore,Russia is actually Europe main supplier of gas and oil.
    And why is everyone blatantly ignoring the vast military contrast between the two? The era when western men could actually fight is long gone. If unorganized mountain goats in Afghanistan can be a struggle i really don't see how tackling the country who actually invests in its military significantly is even making any sense.Heck,more than half of Europe doesn't even have a standing army to speak of.
    What's inaccurate? You just agreed with me.


    That military mis-match encountered in Afghanistan would not be encountered in a hypothetical war with Russia, because that would mean we've already invaded, but also because fighting against regular formations is, weirdly, a lot easier. The conventional forces of Europe are more than a match for the conventional forces of Russia. Standing armies don't figure when we'd have no intention of invading. The combined air forces of Europe (hell, of just UK, France and Germany) are more capable than the Russians.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think its interesting to note that when Hitler attacked Russia, he used Russian resources to fuel his advancement. Its very ironic yet it also represents the picture of the West. To attack Russia they would need Russian and other third world resources to proceed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    I think its interesting to note that when Hitler attacked Russia, he used Russian resources to fuel his advancement. Its very ironic yet it also represents the picture of the West. To attack Russia they would need Russian and other third world resources to proceed.
    Why is this all of a sudden about Europe attacking Russia? There's even less will for that than there is for Russia attacking. In fact, there's more chance of me growing wings than there is of that happening.

    This is just turning into kids who've spent too much time on CoD and MW having war porn fantasies.


    But what's nobody who's suggested this has talked about is why. What do they have to gain? What's their end goal? You really think the Russians long to see their flag fly over Berlin and Paris?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No sides really 'win' in a war. There is only loss and devastation
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 28, 2014
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.