That would lead to the destruction of Europe. Americans aren't particularly interested in dying for Europe: they're still traumatized by the 50K or so American deaths in Vietnam, and as far as wars go, 50K is a trifle. A war with Russia would entail millions of American deaths. (Millions of Russian deaths, too, but the …
That would lead to the destruction of Europe. Americans aren't particularly interested in dying for Europe: they're still traumatized by the 50K or so American deaths in Vietnam, and as far as wars go, 50K is a trifle. A war with Russia would entail millions of American deaths. (Millions of Russian deaths, too, but the Russians would be defending their own country.) Europe has no military capability to defeat Russia on Russia's own soil, and even if it did (it doesn't) it certainly doesn't have the willingness to make the gargantuan sacrifices that it would have to make to have any chance of doing so. The whole idea is a non-starter.
US not required for that. The militaries of the EU nations are greater than Russia's by far, excluding nukes. In fact, the militaries of the Scandinavian nations, the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania are on par with Russia's.
Russia uses a lot of tricks to get its numbers up, such as counting the home guard as actual line troops. It's old hat and doesn't fool anyone but it does make good copy for the press and for politicians getting off on playing up the military strength of their or another country.
It's like China's aircraft carriers. When is an old soviet hull permanently undergoing reparis and renovations, and the other is used for propaganda. Againast an opponent such as Taiwan it's plenty enough, but against any nation with actual modern capabilities such as Japan it's sunk.
Yes, yes, yes. Dream on. Western countries might be able to defeat Russia in some proxy war somewhere. On Russia's own soil? Puh-leez. And the "excluding nuclear weapons" is a particularly nice touch. If you attack Russia (or any other nuclear power, really, even a much smaller one), trust me, nuclear weapons will not be excluded.
And while we're at it, let me ask you this: would you personally be willing to go fight and die somewhere in Siberia? Let your sons and brothers (if you have either) do that? Let your parents freeze to death as Russia turns off gas? Don't tell me about liquid gas from the States: if you want to fight a war of annihilation, you're going to need all the energy you can possibly get (liquid, coal, wind, anything really) for the war effort. Old people not freezing to death is not a priority.
Re: Barbarossa II
That would lead to the destruction of Europe. Americans aren't particularly interested in dying for Europe: they're still traumatized by the 50K or so American deaths in Vietnam, and as far as wars go, 50K is a trifle. A war with Russia would entail millions of American deaths. (Millions of Russian deaths, too, but the Russians would be defending their own country.) Europe has no military capability to defeat Russia on Russia's own soil, and even if it did (it doesn't) it certainly doesn't have the willingness to make the gargantuan sacrifices that it would have to make to have any chance of doing so. The whole idea is a non-starter.
US not required for that. The militaries of the EU nations are greater than Russia's by far, excluding nukes. In fact, the militaries of the Scandinavian nations, the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania are on par with Russia's.
Russia uses a lot of tricks to get its numbers up, such as counting the home guard as actual line troops. It's old hat and doesn't fool anyone but it does make good copy for the press and for politicians getting off on playing up the military strength of their or another country.
It's like China's aircraft carriers. When is an old soviet hull permanently undergoing reparis and renovations, and the other is used for propaganda. Againast an opponent such as Taiwan it's plenty enough, but against any nation with actual modern capabilities such as Japan it's sunk.
Yes, yes, yes. Dream on. Western countries might be able to defeat Russia in some proxy war somewhere. On Russia's own soil? Puh-leez. And the "excluding nuclear weapons" is a particularly nice touch. If you attack Russia (or any other nuclear power, really, even a much smaller one), trust me, nuclear weapons will not be excluded.
And while we're at it, let me ask you this: would you personally be willing to go fight and die somewhere in Siberia? Let your sons and brothers (if you have either) do that? Let your parents freeze to death as Russia turns off gas? Don't tell me about liquid gas from the States: if you want to fight a war of annihilation, you're going to need all the energy you can possibly get (liquid, coal, wind, anything really) for the war effort. Old people not freezing to death is not a priority.