SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

Skybird · 02-10-15, 07:56 AM

Paper is patient.

If I would base my views on believing blindly newspapers close to the US government, I would sing the US government's song, and if I would blindly believe what is written in Russian mainstream press, I would be an uncritical follower of Putin and read his lips in rapture.

Truth is neither side plays honestly here, and both sides are a side with interests that are opposing the interests of the other side.

The treaty system you refer to, ikalugin, has been kicked with boots form both sides by now, diplomatic boots from the West violating it in its spirit, and factual boots from the East violating it's written letter. To me, both are offences rendering the treaty useless, seen that way the us mushing for NATO moving onto Russian borders even more is as guilty as Russia de facto running a military support and combat operation in another formally sovereign nation (how ever stupidily designed that nation may have come into life). I by now consider those security treaties to be obsolete.

We are back for a cold war and arms race. And since no side is really financially well-armed for a repetition of that, it will become a very interesting adventure and economic impacts on both sides of the "frontline" once the debt bombs explode into our faces. By the years 2018-2020, Russia will have completed more or less its modernization cycle of its ground forces, then we will see if after that they start to grow in size, or remain on the quality and quantity levels they are on. The West will continue to shrink its forces for getting fewer, more expensive platforms in a hope of them being superior enough to compensate for numerically being outnumbered. And I doubt that formula will work better than it did during the last cold war - in case of a war in the past that would have - despite all reason - have excluded nuclear weapons, I think the Soviets would have raced through right to the channel. Maybe under high losses - but they would have won it. After all, it seems to me NATO's bid back then was not to prevent a Soviet victory, but to make it so costly that Moscow would decide that it would be too expensive a victory.

02-10-15, 07:56 AM	#2264
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,783 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Paper is patient. If I would base my views on believing blindly newspapers close to the US government, I would sing the US government's song, and if I would blindly believe what is written in Russian mainstream press, I would be an uncritical follower of Putin and read his lips in rapture. Truth is neither side plays honestly here, and both sides are a side with interests that are opposing the interests of the other side. The treaty system you refer to, ikalugin, has been kicked with boots form both sides by now, diplomatic boots from the West violating it in its spirit, and factual boots from the East violating it's written letter. To me, both are offences rendering the treaty useless, seen that way the us mushing for NATO moving onto Russian borders even more is as guilty as Russia de facto running a military support and combat operation in another formally sovereign nation (how ever stupidily designed that nation may have come into life). I by now consider those security treaties to be obsolete. We are back for a cold war and arms race. And since no side is really financially well-armed for a repetition of that, it will become a very interesting adventure and economic impacts on both sides of the "frontline" once the debt bombs explode into our faces. By the years 2018-2020, Russia will have completed more or less its modernization cycle of its ground forces, then we will see if after that they start to grow in size, or remain on the quality and quantity levels they are on. The West will continue to shrink its forces for getting fewer, more expensive platforms in a hope of them being superior enough to compensate for numerically being outnumbered. And I doubt that formula will work better than it did during the last cold war - in case of a war in the past that would have - despite all reason - have excluded nuclear weapons, I think the Soviets would have raced through right to the channel. Maybe under high losses - but they would have won it. After all, it seems to me NATO's bid back then was not to prevent a Soviet victory, but to make it so costly that Moscow would decide that it would be too expensive a victory. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-10-15 at 08:10 AM.