Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pootin lmao
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    I didn't-the question was whether the WEST could afford to take on Russia.When you said "we" I thought you meant European nations,not just Britain on its own(the thought of that alone is ridiculous).My point is that Britain is one of the few euro nations who'se dependence on Russian resources is relative(because 12% in any country's energy mix is significant and not little by any stretch). The other nations'(i.e. Germany) dependence is HUGE by comparison.

    Do correct me if I'm wrong,but I didn't realize that,Britain withstanding, your average euro country even had much of an air force or actual army (i.e. Germany hasn't really,has it?) to match Russia's.So what's with the talk about combining them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P357)
    I didn't-the question was whether the WEST could afford to take on Russia.When you said "we" I thought you meant European nations,not just Britain on its own(the thought of that alone is ridiculous).My point is that Britain is one of the few euro nations who'se dependence on Russian resources is relative(because 12% in any country's energy mix is significant and not little by any stretch). The other nations'(i.e. Germany) dependence is HUGE by comparison.

    Do correct me if I'm wrong,but I didn't realize that,Britain withstanding, your average euro country even had much of an air force or actual army (i.e. Germany hasn't really,has it?) to match Russia's.So what's with the talk about combining them?
    Yes, 12% is reasonable, but we have the ability to make up some or most of the shortfall ourselves, we just don't ordinarily because it's the more expensive option.

    Most (large) European countries have relative strong Forces, especially air forces, it's just they're not used as much. France, Germany, Spain, Italy all have capable 4.5th generation combat aircraft (France - Rafale, everyone else; Typhoon) and Scandinavia isn't far behind. Also worth remembering that the US has a lot of combat aircraft stationed in Europe too. I don't think anyone sane is even remotely suggesting a ground invasion, but if combat were to happen because of Russia's aggression then a combined NATO force would be sent up to meet it and would over power it.


    But still, no-one wants war, I find it extremely hard to believe that Russia would start anything and feel certain that 'the West' wouldn't. Everything else is hypothetical and pointless.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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?
    Nope. I don't think Russians do want war. I just suggested that if the West attacking Russia would effectively include Europe. Although Europe would certainly not be up for it. I think the US is up for war most of the time.

    Its just that the West started going against Russia and of course Russia is defending itself. The West's goal was always to exploit resources and if I was to pick any cause of war, it would be for resources, like it was with Hitler, effectively Hitler wanted autarky and his main goal to invade other countries was to provide Germany with this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I just really hope war does not happen. Personally I'm for neither side but I prefer to see the truth in what is possible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hope not, given that I'm at conscript age.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No one's. People seem to have this fantasy of an anti US alliance made up of China, Russia and whoever else gets tacked on. China has very different interests to Russia, in many cases they are actually rivals.
    Recently I saw something - cant remember on which site, but I'm almost certain that it WASN'T RT, but Russia and China have a special relationship like the US has with the UK. I'm not sure if I believe that tbh. Let's remember Russia and China have only been friends again since the 1990s, and IMO their border is still an area where both sides disagree. Also remember that in 1969, during the height of the border troubles with China, the USA (this is to prove your point btw) was not planning on remaining neutral if hostilities occurred between China and the USSR as a result of the border disputes. Also China has more success economically in the US.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see he has anything to gain from it. Talk of military ground forces is fairly irrelevant. Wars will never be fought like the World wars again with trench vs trench and man vs man. Wars are and will be fought using air strikes and assassinations.

    We we could potentially face a Cold War in the future but we are a long, long way from a hot war because of the nuclear status of the countries involved, mutually assured destruction keeps everyone on a leash.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, he's not (that) insane. Because he'd lose.
    No he wouldn't. He has nuclear weapons.
    There's no such thing as losing a war when nuclear powers are involved. That's why it's called MAD (mutually assured distruction) everyone loses
    It's idiotic ideas like what you just said that have lead us into this situation
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harrie Lyons)
    No he wouldn't. He has nuclear weapons.
    There's no such thing as losing a war when nuclear powers are involved. That's why it's called MAD (mutually assured distruction) everyone loses
    It's idiotic ideas like what you just said that have lead us into this situation
    Into what situation? Idiotic children thinking war is likely?

    It is in no way going to happen. Nobody has anything to gain from it. In no single post anywhere in this thread - or the twenty odd like it - has anyone said why there'd be a war.




    Even with nukes, he'd lose. If he wants war, then he starts war, then he's seen as the instigator. Regardless of outcome, he's down as the instigator. That's why he loses.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    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?
    BRIC's means nothing in terms of war, it's not some new world order conspiracy. India would never ever go to war against the west. Don't let trade deals fool you, we trade with Russia and we don't like them.

    And Merkel was there a few weeks before. Proves nothing, there's no formal defense agreement between the two and Russia is frankly not important enough to them. Their alliance is with China.

    The notion that Israel backs anybody but the US is humorous, not taking part in sanctions is not evidence of alliance. Israel is also a major non-NATO ally.

    Turkey has not joined the customs union yet, that has simply been proposed. Turkey has not left the EU association agreement either, actually negotiations are speeding up. Turkey is also a NATO nation.

    That's just factually untrue.

    ..

    Trade agreements are not evidence of military alliance.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    BRIC's means nothing in terms of war, it's not some new world order conspiracy. India would never ever go to war against the west. Don't let trade deals fool you, we trade with Russia and we don't like them.

    And Merkel was there a few weeks before. Proves nothing, there's no formal defense agreement between the two and Russia is frankly not important enough to them. Their alliance is with China.

    The notion that Israel backs anybody but the US is humorous, not taking part in sanctions is not evidence of alliance. Israel is also a major non-NATO ally.

    Turkey has not joined the customs union yet, that has simply been proposed. Turkey has not left the EU association agreement either, actually negotiations are speeding up. Turkey is also a NATO nation.

    That's just factually untrue.

    ..

    Trade agreements are not evidence of military alliance.
    I wasn't implying that BRICS meant war, I said they all have very good relations between each other and it was confirmed recently even though the Chancellor was there and I think she was more there for the World Cup. So I doubt those with really good relations would go against each other.

    Nothing is confirmed, as you said the West still trades with Russia but does not like it however, why do you think the case is the same with the BRICS nations? I would highly doubt it, theoretically, the third world hate the West for its exploitation so who do you think it would side with?
    You don't have to have an official alliance to prove backing, Hitler had a 10 yr non-aggression pact with the USSR and France promised an alliance with the USSR in protection of Czechoslovakia. Both of whom broke their alliances. Anything can happen.

    It's illogical that your implying because someone does not support sanctions against Russia it does not necessarily mean they like them? The question is, why wouldn't they support sanctions if the hated them? (And I know your going to give some excuse like 'they are afraid of not receiving resources but India and Israel is not so much dependent on Russia so they can afford to support sanctions, plus its merely support. The EU however has supported sanctions despite having so much to lose)

    Plus India does not support Western sanctions against Russia. It's not your British colony anymore and the pro-West Ghandi dynasty political stronghold was removed so..I think its more likely they'll side with Russia. (Since we are speaking theoretically)

    Relations change, you can cancel NATO membership like France did once (albeit it is back now) and a non-NATO ally basically means nothing, there are no major agreements.
    In relation to Turkey, I made a mistake, yes they are not there yet but they are on their way to being part. I believe it will happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No. You can see by his facial expressions on TV after the plane fell and his stance changed by not saying Ukraine did it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    I wasn't implying that BRICS meant war, I said they all have very good relations between each other and it was confirmed recently even though the Chancellor was there and I think she was more there for the World Cup. So I doubt those with really good relations would go against each other.

    Nothing is confirmed, as you said the West still trades with Russia but does not like it however, why do you think the case is the same with the BRICS nations? I would highly doubt it, theoretically, the third world hate the West for its exploitation so who do you think it would side with?
    You don't have to have an official alliance to prove backing, Hitler had a 10 yr non-aggression pact with the USSR and France promised an alliance with the USSR in protection of Czechoslovakia. Both of whom broke their alliances. Anything can happen.

    It's illogical that your implying because someone does not support sanctions against Russia it does not necessarily mean they like them? The question is, why wouldn't they support sanctions if the hated them? (And I know your going to give some excuse like 'they are afraid of not receiving resources but India and Israel is not so much dependent on Russia so they can afford to support sanctions, plus its merely support. The EU however has supported sanctions despite having so much to lose)

    Plus India does not support Western sanctions against Russia. It's not your British colony anymore and the pro-West Ghandi dynasty political stronghold was removed so..I think its more likely they'll side with Russia. (Since we are speaking theoretically)

    Relations change, you can cancel NATO membership like France did once (albeit it is back now) and a non-NATO ally basically means nothing, there are no agreements.
    In relation to Turkey, it made a mistake, yes they are not there yet but they are on their way to being part. I believe it will happen.
    Of course i'm not suggesting that they don't have good relations (just as China, India and Brazil do with the west). That's not for debate, what i'm saying is that your amplifying that into a power play which does not exist. Your statement regarding US-China earlier for example is only somewhat true (Russia hates them far more than China who can pass them in all measures simply via continued trade and growth - the same is not true for Russia who have neither the population or economy for it).

    Your saying that the third world hates the west but again at a government level at least, that's a non issue. Aside from that anyway, Russia is irrelevant to Africa as their governments back either China (sub-Saharan) or the west (Sunni's - north Africa). Even in South America, it's mostly neutral or pro west (aside from Brazil who again back China).

    Like and ally are two different things. When your talking about any kind of real warfare there is only one side Israel and Turkey are going to back. A major non-NATO ally is as good as, at a government level the military assets provided ensure loyalty in the event of warfare. Given that India has been non-alligned during the cold war and pro US since i doubt they'd get involved.

    Relations can of course change but it's hard to see why they would for Russia at least.

    ..

    Essentially i think your power plays all wrong. Russia is a country with population decline, rampant inflation, mass corruption and a relatively old military for the most part. It will never be one of the 4 powers this century (China, India, US, United Eurozone if it finally becomes a proper state). One can see your point if China wanted to wage economic or military warfare but there's little reason as to why Russian aggression would be reason enough to damage their richest export markets. China of course has shown little evidence that it wants or needs to severely damage the US, for now at least it's happy playing the game of global capitalism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    LOL at source CNN is the most biased pro USA, pro Israel news outlets.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    Recently I saw something - cant remember on which site, but I'm almost certain that it WASN'T RT, but Russia and China have a special relationship like the US has with the UK. I'm not sure if I believe that tbh. Let's remember Russia and China have only been friends again since the 1990s, and IMO their border is still an area where both sides disagree. Also remember that in 1969, during the height of the border troubles with China, the USA (this is to prove your point btw) was not planning on remaining neutral if hostilities occurred between China and the USSR as a result of the border disputes. Also China has more success economically in the US.
    Certainly would not agree with that. I think it would be wishful thinking to imagine either nation that close. By all means they do have trade deals and tend to see eye to eye on a lot of things but I think a lot of that is convenience rather than a long term relationship.

    Yeah their border history is certainly filled with some pretty large disputes, even today I think neither is completely happy with the status quo. I imagine a dislike of US foreign policy unites them but take that away and a large gap would quickly appear.

    Still interesting to watch the moves both nations make and what they do align over.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Of course i'm not suggesting that they don't have good relations (just as China, India and Brazil do with the west). That's not for debate, what i'm saying is that your amplifying that into a power play which does not exist. Your statement regarding US-China earlier for example is only somewhat true (Russia hates them far more than China who can pass them in all measures simply via continued trade and growth - the same is not true for Russia who have neither the population or economy for it).

    Your saying that the third world hates the west but again at a government level at least, that's a non issue. Aside from that anyway, Russia is irrelevant to Africa as their governments back either China (sub-Saharan) or the west (Sunni's - north Africa). Even in South America, it's mostly neutral or pro west (aside from Brazil who again back China).

    Like and ally are two different things. When your talking about any kind of real warfare there is only one side Israel and Turkey are going to back. A major non-NATO ally is as good as, at a government level the military assets provided ensure loyalty in the event of warfare. Given that India has been non-alligned during the cold war and pro US since i doubt they'd get involved.

    Relations can of course change but it's hard to see why they would for Russia at least.

    ..

    Essentially i think your power plays all wrong. Russia is a country with population decline, rampant inflation, mass corruption and a relatively old military for the most part. It will never be one of the 4 powers this century (China, India, US, United Eurozone if it finally becomes a proper state). One can see your point if China wanted to wage economic or military warfare but there's little reason as to why Russian aggression would be reason enough to damage their richest export markets. China of course has shown little evidence that it wants or needs to severely damage the US, for now at least it's happy playing the game of global capitalism.
    I think its easy to see relations change, why? Because the West has done a lot of harm to previous 'allies' and because Russia is now a major power again since the fall. The EU is crumbling, US and EU relations aren't so great at the moment either and China is with Russia, so why wouldn't anybody else join those who provide stability? I think China has shown enough evidence it wants to ruin the US http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-tensions.html Here is an example of the 'trade-battle going on' between them.

    It looks as though a Eurasian Union would be more effective, not to mention, Australia and the rest of Malaysia etc, is heavily dependent on China's economy, while Britain on the Commonwealth and the EU on Russia's trade so if both refuse to deal, then the West is in for a blow.

    I think the West likes to pacify itself with how 'superior' they are and how 'weak' Russia and China is but its far from the truth, so the West can keep comforting itself..

    Mass corruption is just an accusation, an opinion, people think that Russia's 'homophobia' is corrupt and it is by Western standards however it is important to note that a democracy is different in every country. The Russian people are traditionally very conservative and the majority supports the government's stance on eliminating gay propaganda just as it does with swearing, smoking, weapons and other things the people wish not to see in the public sphere and this may conflict with other rights but it's still democracy and democracy is essentially about what people want.

    There is a population decline in the West as well, its common for wealthy and advanced countries. I don't see how this is going to affect anything plus the population decline is mainly due to a lot of people emigrating, whats to stop them from moving back seen as Russia now is rich. And I don't see how there is 'rampant inflation', never even heard of it.

    I think instead of discussing what might happen we should actually wait and see...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do we think about the New Development Bank set up this month by the Brics to rival the West's World Bank?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Rick M)
    What do we think about the New Development Bank set up this month by the Brics to rival the West's World Bank?
    It's interesting but overhyped right now (the west has a collective GDP of ~$40tn, the BRIC nations still less than $15tn). I'm actually not opposed to anything which allows China to control nations like Russia and other developing nations not allinged to the west more as i don't buy the whole 'China wants to subvert the US' waffle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right, I hadn't thought of it as overhyped. But yeah, although I tend to be pro Western, I think its great to have an alternative to the WBank which has so so many flaws.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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