Putin: You better not mess with a nuclear-armed Russia - Polidicks

[QUOTE=download;45842965] Russia really needs to be slapped down but I can't see how anyone could do it.[/QUOTE] Adidas Gmbh based in Germany could stop exporting their tracksuits to Russia to cause internal revolt and dissent

[QUOTE=lapsus_;45845509]Adidas Gmbh based in Germany could stop exporting their tracksuits to Russia to cause internal revolt and dissent[/QUOTE] Okay, okay, let's tape a step back and look at the situation here! Yes, things are rough, but let's not make any rash decisions, lest [I]we[/I] become the monster!

Seriously, dumb? Can someone explain how war with Russia could NOT lead to the end of the world?

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45845614]Can someone explain how war with Russia could NOT lead to the end of the world?[/QUOTE] A brain from space visits earth and communicates telepathically with the children of crews in charge of the nuclear weapons. The alien brain helps the children to sabotage the rockets and prevent the nuclear annihilation of earth.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45845629]Bacause neither side is fucking stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon... MAD still exists you know.[/QUOTE] You don't think the Americans wouldn't consider using Nukes if Russia swept across Europe? American leadership seems so proud that they probably would rather have a nuclear war than have to make peace on Russia's terms.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45845654]You don't think the Americans wouldn't consider using Nukes if Russia swept across Europe? American leadership seems so proud that they probably would rather have a nuclear war than have to make peace on Russia's terms.[/QUOTE] I find Russia "sweeping across" Europe literally impossible anyway.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45845614]Seriously, dumb? Can someone explain how war with Russia could NOT lead to the end of the world?[/QUOTE] Nuclear weapons aren't weapons at all, 'cause absolutely no one would ever dare launching them. They're political bargaining chips that really hold no value today except to imply that you're serious.

[QUOTE=download;45843821]This. They have new economic ties with South America which include some of the fastest growing nations in the world.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really matter If you have economic ties to south america really if the USN doesn't allow those ships to pass, plus China his biggest partner would back away in a heart beat if the u.s. actually got involved because they need us more than they need russia

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45845417]War with Russia means the end of the world, is Ukraine worth that?[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It's a long leap for a war between nuclear powers to go from conventional to nuclear, especially in this kind of situation where the concern is maintaining the territorial and national sovereignty of one nation (Ukraine) whilst simultaneously attempting to curb the belligerence and aggression of another (Russia). No one in their right mind wants to destroy Russia here, and that's what would be a surefire root to nuclear war; we want to force them out of the Ukraine, remind them that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated, and cause enough damage to them in the process that they'll think twice before ever trying something like this again. And we also want to show them that we aren't just going to sit around and do nothing and let them do whatever they want. Nothing more. The question is how do we go about doing this? Well we should've turned this into a proxy war last month and started supplying the Ukrainians with what they needed to decisively defeat the rebels quickly and hold Russian forces at bay in the first place; equipment, intelligence, advice and training, etc. Again, after MH17 was shot down by the rebels, we had the perfect opportunity since it claimed the lives of so many of our European allies' citizens and one American life as well. It was a modern Lusitania situation in a sense. We could have justified such involvement based off it, but we still never made any attempt to get involved. And that was stupid of us. We had a perfect opportunity at our feet, and we didn't take advantage of it. So now what? What's going to happen to the Ukraine? What's Russia going to do after they're finished with the Ukraine? Again, the issue here is that Russia is doing whatever it wants and we aren't doing anything to try and stop them; if we continue to do nothing, they're going to continue doing whatever they want safe in the knowledge that we're too weak and cowardly to do anything about it. Arguments about justice and morality and preserving peace and stability aside, the fact is this kind of action-inaction game we're playing is very dangerous. History has already shown us how dangerous this sort of apathetic appeasement we're accepting is. We've put sanctions on the Russians and it's causing them some economic problems; so? That hasn't stopped them from invading and destabilizing a sovereign nation, and they aren't showing any signs of letting up. The whole situation is bad. Rottenly bad. Bad for the West's reputation and interests, [i]our[/i] reputation and [i]our[/i] interests, bad for the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, bad for our future and definitely their future, bad for peace, bad for stability, business, international relations... bad for everyone. Things get worse the ballsier the Russians get, and our inaction makes them ballsier. The crisis needs to be brought to a head already and concluded; the sooner the better. We could have ended it months ago, and we should've-- before MH17, before Russia started invading, before who knows what other terrible things happen in the future. But we didn't, and it continues to escalate. How far will it go is what's worrisome. How far are we prepared to let it go, for that matter?

[QUOTE=Medevila;45845665]The United States would not use nukes even if Russia "sweeping across Europe" were a remote possibility a ground battle would ensue as soon as NATO was bruised but it's silly to even entertain your Russian dominance fetish[/QUOTE] They've done it before; Hitler's army was vastly superior in terms of technology, experience and training. He was backed up by allies and expeditionary forces from all across Europe: Fascist Italy, Vichy France, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland, Franco's Spain, Occupied Scandinavia, Occupied Balkan countries, occupied Low Countries and so on... He had every advantage going for him at the beginning; he was so sure of victory that he even boasted: [I]"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."[/I] Yet by the end of it the Russians occupied Berlin and it was all over. Russia beating NATO in conventional war may be unlikely, but it was unlikely they would beat Hitler's all-conquering Wehrmacht back in 1941 either.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45845836]They've done it before; Hitler's army was vastly superior in terms of technology, experience and training. He was backed up by allies and expeditionary forces from all across Europe: Fascist Italy, Vichy France, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland, Franco's Spain, Occupied Scandinavia, Occupied Balkan countries, occupied Low Countries and so on... He had every advantage going for him at the beginning; he was so sure of victory that he even boasted: [I]"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."[/I] Yet by the end of it the Russians occupied Berlin and it was all over. Russia beating NATO in conventional war may be unlikely, but it was unlikely they would beat Hitler's all-conquering Wehrmacht back in 1941 either.[/QUOTE] But on the other side, Germany was being beaten up by the other Allies. Russia wasn't alone in that war, you know. They were a dot on the map being consumed by the rest of the world. They were already in stress and then everyone, everywhere attacked them, it wasn't just Russia.

Imagine if one of Putin's nukes malfunctioned and he basically nuked himself.

[QUOTE=Fort83;45845926]Russia won't be happy to see that.[/QUOTE] What're they gonna do about it, kill their government again? Poland is a full-fledged EU and NATO member, Russia ain't got shit to say to Poland at this point.

Time to boot up DEFCON.

[QUOTE=Govna;45845830]No it doesn't. It's a long leap for a war between nuclear powers to go from conventional to nuclear, especially in this kind of situation where the concern is maintaining the territorial and national sovereignty of one nation (Ukraine) whilst simultaneously attempting to curb the belligerence and aggression of another (Russia). No one in their right mind wants to destroy Russia here, and that's what would be a surefire root to nuclear war; we want to force them out of the Ukraine, remind them that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated, and cause enough damage to them in the process that they'll think twice before ever trying something like this again. And we also want to show them that we aren't just going to sit around and do nothing and let them do whatever they want. Nothing more. The question is how do we go about doing this? Well we should've turned this into a proxy war last month and started supplying the Ukrainians with what they needed to decisively defeat the rebels quickly and hold Russian forces at bay in the first place; equipment, intelligence, advice and training, etc. Again, after MH17 was shot down by the rebels, we had the perfect opportunity since it claimed the lives of so many of our European allies' citizens and one American life as well. It was a modern Lusitania situation in a sense. We could have justified such involvement based off it, but we still never made any attempt to get involved. And that was stupid of us. We had a perfect opportunity at our feet, and we didn't take advantage of it. So now what? What's going to happen to the Ukraine? What's Russia going to do after they're finished with the Ukraine? Again, the issue here is that Russia is doing whatever it wants and we aren't doing anything to try and stop them; if we continue to do nothing, they're going to continue doing whatever they want safe in the knowledge that we're too weak and cowardly to do anything about it. Arguments about justice and morality and preserving peace and stability aside, the fact is this kind of action-inaction game we're playing is very dangerous. History has already shown us how dangerous this sort of apathetic appeasement we're accepting is. We've put sanctions on the Russians and it's causing them some economic problems; so? That hasn't stopped them from invading and destabilizing a sovereign nation, and they aren't showing any signs of letting up. The whole situation is bad. Rottenly bad. Bad for the West's reputation and interests, [i]our[/i] reputation and [i]our[/i] interests, bad for the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, bad for our future and definitely their future, bad for peace, bad for stability, business, international relations... bad for everyone. Things get worse the ballsier the Russians get, and our inaction makes them ballsier. The crisis needs to be brought to a head already and concluded; the sooner the better. We could have ended it months ago, and we should've-- before MH17, before Russia started invading, before who knows what other terrible things happen in the future. But we didn't, and it continues to escalate. How far will it go is what's worrisome. How far are we prepared to let it go, for that matter?[/QUOTE] The whole reason this is happening is because a few individuals in the American Senate and State Department were upset that Putin had prevented the attack on Syria back in 2013. (They're wrong, btw, Obama pretended to support the strike but was actually doing everything he could to prevent it, and the American people were pressuring their Congressmen to oppose the strike. Putin merely provided Obama an off-ramp after Kerry opened his big mouth.) They retaliated for Putin's perceived interference by supporting the Euromaidan movement, which probably would have came and went without incident otherwise. Now with the ISIS threat in Iraq and Syria we are increasingly seeing that Putin was right about the moral character of the Syrian Opposition. So rather than retaliating against Putin for stopping us from toppling Assad, we should be thanking him (but like I said; Putin merely provided an opportunity, Obama took it). Who knows how powerful these ISIS people would be if Putin hadn't got his way. [QUOTE=Gwoodman;45845875]But on the other side, Germany was being beaten up by the other Allies. Russia wasn't alone in that war, you know. They were a dot on the map being consumed by the rest of the world. They were already in stress and then everyone, everywhere attacked them, it wasn't just Russia.[/QUOTE] That's not really true, Stalingrad and Kursk happened before D-Day. After Stalingrad the Germans pulled assets out of France to compensate for their losses on the Eastern Front, without the reduction in German strength, D-Day may well have been a failure.

We should vote a country World Leader to fuck up Putins dominations plans. I vote Australia.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;45846325]We should vote a country World Leader to fuck up Putins dominations plans. I vote Australia.[/QUOTE] America has already voted for itself, and only it's vote counts.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;45846325]We should vote a country World Leader to fuck up Putins dominations plans. I vote Australia.[/QUOTE] Better get adopt the Patronage policy tree and start bribing those city states then.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;45842958]Jesus, he looks like a Bond villain.[/QUOTE] Looks like Hitler without a mustache to me.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45846339]America has already voted for itself, and only it's vote counts.[/QUOTE] I vote mexico [editline]30th August 2014[/editline] but I guess the USA can bring freedom to the evils of communism once more!

The old nuclear missiles aren't that dangerous .. with the ballistic missile defense and the adv-radars in the EU would allow us to shoot them down before they get a change to detonate. The biggest thread I see are their nuclear submarines that can go undetected [url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/tmt/466617.html]for weeks[/url] or if someone where so stupid to use a MIRV.

[QUOTE=Kefirman;45843056]Highly sensationalist title. I recommend you to read the article itself, it is mostly internal politics crap, done in order to assure citizens that they are "well defended" against West. He is still an authoritarian ruler with questionable plans and actions, though.[/QUOTE] Exactly. [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Nak;45846931]The old nuclear missiles aren't that dangerous .. with the ballistic missile defense and the adv-radars in the EU would allow us to shoot them down before they get a change to detonate. The biggest thread I see are their nuclear submarines that can go undetected [url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/tmt/466617.html]for weeks[/url] or if someone where so stupid to use a MIRV.[/QUOTE] Also Topol-M which is a nuclear missile on a truck that's nearly impossible to notice unless you know what area to watch.

[QUOTE=Chrisordie;45845640]A brain from space visits earth and communicates telepathically with the children of crews in charge of the nuclear weapons. The alien brain helps the children to sabotage the rockets and prevent the nuclear annihilation of earth.[/QUOTE] So David Bowie, then?

Well, that's what happens when you elect a president who worked for the KGB and is quite possibly still a Communist.

well I say the 007 is Russian spy ... too similar to one ex-KGB agent which is now it's President ;) so UK is doomed

[QUOTE=Dwarden;45850541]well I say the 007 is Russian spy ... too similar to one ex-KGB agent which is now it's President ;) so UK is doomed[/QUOTE] You muppet .. Russia and USA aren't the only with nuclear weapons. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Nuclear_weapons.png[/t]

[QUOTE=Riller;45845981]What're they gonna do about it,[B] kill their government again?[/B] Poland is a full-fledged EU and NATO member, Russia ain't got shit to say to Poland at this point.[/QUOTE] Since when did the Russian Federation kill Poland's government? If you're referring to the Polish presidential plane crash, you should keep conspiracy theory's and fact separate.

heres the geopolitics of the whole situation In 2009 during a summit meet Putin expressed concerns for a growing nato force stating that it's forces were stronger than the boarder forces russia has to defend itself and should a second cold war start russia would be at such a disadvantage that a single assault would kill the country. it's concerns were ignored, and russia threatend to seize crimea which was again ignored until they did it and now they're capturing Ukraine to use as a geopolitical bufferzone [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] also cnn is alarmist as fuck and that title is so sensational it's not even funny.

[QUOTE=Nak;45850839]You muppet .. Russia and USA aren't the only with nuclear weapons. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Nuclear_weapons.png[/t][/QUOTE] Huh. I wasn't aware that France and India had nukes. Although India kinda makes sense...

[QUOTE=laserguided;45850854]Since when did the Russian Federation kill Poland's government? If you're referring to the Polish presidential plane crash, you should keep conspiracy theory's and fact separate.[/QUOTE] Yeah everything you disagree on is a conspiracy theory and not a fact. [url]http://www.wsieci.pl/wsieci-cala-prawda-o-trotylu-pnews-1265.html[/url] [url]http://smolenskcrash.eu/news-102-independent-experts-confirm-explosives-were-found.html#.VALy4mN0Z1A[/url]