Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russia stands no chance    8/19/2002 3:11:38 AM
It seems you hold something against the American and Brittish government. Russia would stand no chance against America even if they removed all nuclear weapons. Russia cannot afford a war against America as they lack funds for a war against a world superpower. There people would starve if they focused there funds on military supplies. It is said that they stole most of there designs from America to begin with. True there country would be too large to invade and occupy and would put the U.S. in a bad position with other world nations, but they can destroy Russia at least to the point that other small militias take over parts of Russia and create smaller countries...
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Stalin_1243    RE:Russia stands no chance   5/31/2004 3:47:18 PM
not true. Russia's army is most crditable and if America WOULD invade Russia ould rain the offensive with ICBMs. Russia cannot aford a war with america nor could america with Russia.If this were to happen we would no longer see stars but only missiles!
Quote    Reply

Desert Fox    RE:Russia stands no chance   6/29/2004 5:19:18 AM
YOu aboslute fool Russians fought of Germans for nothing, when Russia is undre attck they are not like the uS where they cut and run and people flee to Europe if it did happen. If there is omething the Russian can be proud of its there nationalism all Russians take up against any invader no matter what colour, who you voted for and plus the Russian Oligarchs would be able to pay for thw war even if they dont liek there government they would not let there homeland die. Russian Oligarchs or richest business men could fund 10 wars SEcondly USA if weak as hell they pulled out of Somalia after 18 troops died, and they died to a militia that didn;t even have proper clothes. and shoes. The US Army is one the most ineffective armies in the world there technology means nothing. They talk big but there lack proper combat and mental training
Quote    Reply

Kadett    Ah, such lovely ignorance.   6/29/2004 3:54:55 PM
1. The Russians didn't fight off the Germans for nothing. They fought them off for 20 million dead and almost total defeat. The Germans were just outside of Moscow after all. 2. The Russian oligarchs would not be able to pay for a war. Not even Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, would be able to finance a war. 3. The US pulled out of Somalia because we had a moron and a coward for a president at the time. 4. While the US did pull out (due to stupid leadership), the Battle of Mogadishu was hardly a Somali success. In exchange for 18 KIA and 73 WIA in an ambush, the Somalis lost approximately 1,400 KIA and 5,000 WIA. Furthermore, this was a battle where the American forces were light infantry with almost all their gear left at the base, and had little ammunition, and only a few light machine guns. 5. And if you really want to speak of ineffectual armies, I should point out that the Russian military has not stamped out the Chechen rebellion and took horrendous casualties in all three fights for Grozny..
Quote    Reply

Kadett    RE:Russia stands no chance-Stalin   6/29/2004 3:59:26 PM
1. Russia's army is not that creditable against a modern, combat tested army with the latest technology. 2. One nuke by Russia means massive nuclear retaliation by America, obliterating Russia.
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Russia's military - still ineffective   7/3/2004 1:02:35 AM
Honestly, I think that our (Russian) army should be fully dismantled, and new profeccional and modern army should be formed. Most of our military commanders should be prosecuted for numerous crimes. Most of military units are absolutely non-combat ready. Every day I see conscripts on my city streets. They are ill-looking young boys of 18-20, their uniform is old and sometimes dirty-looking, they themselves look always hungry, etc. At the very same time our high ranked military commanders are bathing in decadence and comfort of their Mediterranean villas (now arrested lt.-general Ganeev, ex-deputy minister, has a villa of 17 million USD in Spain). In our country army is comparable with prison, with one difference. To become a prisoner you should commit a crime. To become a conscript you jusyt need to be a boy. No one wants to go in army. What to do there? To be constantly beaten by older soldiers, to steal money from younger, to steal fuel from tanks and trucks (to buy some food and cigarettes). Many conscripts die from accidents, beating, illness. I myself lucky to not become a consript, because police oficcers are free from consription. Well, if I really want to go in Chechnya, its better to serve in police unit than in army. At least, police (militia) is a professional, well-equipped, armed and trained force to be reconed with.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Russia's military - still ineffective   7/3/2004 1:25:44 AM
roadcop, what with the Cold War being over, the US has no intention to "finish off" the remaining Russian military. The current Russian and US administrations know well enough the value of each others economic trade. And we cooperate effectively against the same problems with terrorisms. The fear of US hostility against Russia and its Commonwealth of States is not to be worried over so much as to whatever intent the chinese government to the east may have. In their quest for world position, some of their people think that china must secure more resources, and I would fear that the Siberian oil reserves and certain agricultural areas in esatern Russian territories may come under threat. Even though the US and Russia have had their differences in beliefs, we still defeated together a great evil that once threaten both our nations. Rest assured that should any eastern trouble befall your nation, it is most certain the United States would once again extend its support and assistance to Russia to ward off such aggression. We are far more important as economic allies with each other than we are as military enemies..
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    Let's have some optimism here!   7/5/2004 11:58:54 AM
Okay, once upon a time I was one of the Cold Warriors, in my youthful days. That's in the past now. The Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is struggling to find it's way forward, at times with a lot of old baggage in the way. Having gotten my fangs out on another board the other day, I will now try to preach a message of peace before everyone think's I'm a total ##s. Russia has had a bad hand dealt to it by history; they came out of Communism right at the beginning of the information age, and a lot of other nations around the world had a long head start. Further, the politics and ideas that went with that age were missing in Russia. It was a case of the chicken or the egg-- which came first? Gradually, Russia has come to find the chicken and the egg, and the means to make more chickens and eggs. Communism had severely damaged Russia not only economically and militarily, but culturally and spiritually. This was and is a more complicated thing to fix; add to this the fact that Russia is surrounded by threats and instability, and I am sure that history will look back on Russia's time in the early twenty first century as an unenviable place for any nation to be in. It will be very hard going, but I think Russia can pull out of it. They are already showing great signs of progress. I believe that repairing the cultural and spiritual damage may be harder. They are being exposed to some of the worst, most nihilistic influences in the West at a time when they don't have the sociological infrastructure to limit the damage and sort the bad out from the good. The damage that Hollywood's Worst are inflicting on the United States is a great example. Now, imagine trying to raise your kids right in Russia. The Russians will, I think, make use of the openness of this time to skip ahead of the learning curve and avoid some of the mistakes of the United States and the West-- such as allowing lawyers and entertainers to define common sense and normalcy-- and hopefully come out ahead. They have the resources. They have the raw knowledge, and drive. They have allies in the US and elsewhere ready to help, not only for their interest, but Russia's.
Quote    Reply

Alexis    Russia would rout an invasion   7/7/2004 11:16:42 AM
I'm not sure what your underlying assumption is, but it seems to be that US would attack Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such events are HIGHLY unlikely, you should remember that no matter how much Russian forces have declined since their glory days, Russia could still rout a US invasion. I will not speak about US nuclear use against Russia. This will not happen since the inhabitants of such a city as Washington value the charms of their living environment, notably one of its strong points, which is the small level of radioactivity. About US invasion against Russia, without any US nuclear first use, one has first to remark that Russia would be free to do the nuclear first use. Notably on concentrations of enemy ground troops, on landing sites, on air bases. The second remark is that the US would be hard pressed to convince European countries to join their fight. As a consequence, using bases close to the theater would not be possible for America. Or she would have to wage war on the countries hosting her bases TOO. This leads to the third remark : since America would have to attack from the sea, the power of the US Navy would be the important factor. And it is indeed huge. With a small limitation, still : Russia remains probably the only country in the world that could sink several US aircraft carrier groups without nuclear use. Look to their Oscar II submarines and their load of supersonic long range antiship missiles if you have any doubt. As a consequence, US invasion from the sea (Baltic ? Arctic ?) would be seriously impaired, if not entirely disrupted. What forces would still manage to land would have to face all of the Russian army, with little if any air support (remember those aircraft carriers are busy enough defending themselves). As for air domination, it would probably be Russian, given their excellent Mig-31 interceptors and their Sukhoi-27s. Routing the invaders would not be long, and would probably not even need nuclear first use.
Quote    Reply

chicom_guy    RE:Russia would rout an invasion   7/8/2004 1:10:29 AM
Of course Russia would. Russia was, is. and always will be a great power. Now America certainly wants to conquor Russia and all of her natural resources, but these people are certainly not stupid. If the U.S ever attacks Russia, not only would the Russians give America a bloody nose, you can count on China to sneak a few punches at those yanks in the process.
Quote    Reply

Alexis    Russia would rout an invasion - to Grum   7/8/2004 8:35:05 AM
If you don't know the basics about the respective military strenghts of the different countries in this world, search the Internet for information. You'll find aplenty. About the fact that the US would never invade Russia, of course you're right. This is not for the reason that "there is no nothing", but for the simple reason that Russia is not conquerable.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT