EPTRussia can't take on Europe, let alone NATO militarily even if he wanted.
the Russian army is far to small to occupy anything larger than Ukraine
Ukraine Crisis - Page 163
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
Russia can't take on Europe, let alone NATO militarily even if he wanted. the Russian army is far to small to occupy anything larger than Ukraine | ||
|
semmeL
Germany85 Posts
It's hard to judge how far Putin really is willing to go. So it's somewhat understandable that no one wants to be the one, that leads into an even bigger crisis. It's bad for Ukraine, but the west will most likely wait it out, as long as they can. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote: Who gives a shit about the numbers that you're quoting when Hitler turned around and buttfucked France and drove the British out of Europe in 6 weeks? Russia couldn't do anything similar to that today. Because you, and others are stating, on paper, that Russia would get destroyed. And on paper in 1939, Germany is in an even worse position. There is an old saying at the drag strip I used to race it. We don't race dyno sheets, we race cars. The early parts of WW2 turned out completely the opposite way it should have on paper, just like races can't be predicted by dyno sheets. My point is that to do that is very ignorant, and quite dangerous. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:39 BronzeKnee wrote: I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history. For someone who keeps misquoting Chamberlains pre-WW2 speech multiple times in this thread you're trying pretty damn hard to call others out on not being factual. But I'm sure for someone that well versed in history that was just a random accident. Mind taking this to the WW2 history thread now? | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
People staaaaaaaaaahp | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:50 r.Evo wrote: For someone who keeps misquoting Chamberlains pre-WW2 speech multiple times in this thread you're trying pretty damn hard to call others out on not being factual. But I'm sure for someone that well versed in history that was just a random accident. Mind taking this to the WW2 history thread now? What is the purpose of history but to learn from it? On March 04 2014 04:50 plgElwood wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law People staaaaaaaaaahp Did you read the whole article? "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]" I'd say the occupation of one country by another on the same basic pretense of Hitler's invasion (protection of citizens) of Czechoslovakia is an appropriate comparison. Especially when the former country wants to annex that country. | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:48 semmeL wrote: It's hard to go up with threatining military force before trying to deescalate in any matter. Cause if it gets out of hand, there's also the fear that nuclear threats come into play... It's hard to judge how far Putin really is willing to go. So it's somewhat understandable that no one wants to be the one, that leads into an even bigger crisis. It's bad for Ukraine, but the west will most likely wait it out, as long as they can. Exactly! I defiantly don't want to see danish cities nuked, not that I think it is even a possibility, but a war with Russia would certainly increase the chances. Harsh economic and diplomatic sanctions is what I believe is the way, just wish the UK would agree and not be pussies | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:54 lolfail9001 wrote: So... since when Russia is 1930s Germany? They aren't. But their actions are very similar. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote: Who gives a shit about the numbers that you're quoting when Hitler turned around and buttfucked France and drove the British out of Europe in 6 weeks? Russia couldn't do anything similar to that today. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:48 Ramong wrote: Holy f***, do you think quoting that book makes what you say any more right? Russia can't take on Europe, let alone NATO militarily even if he wanted. the Russian army is far to small to occupy anything larger than Ukraine The issue is that it's completely irrelevant who can take on who in a conventional war. Risking a war between nuclear powers because "in a conventional war we'd win easily" is a pretty dangerous game to play. Especially when it's about the pretty much only country in Europe Russia can get away with doing this to without risking escalating the situation themselves. Well, technically there is Finland and Sweden I assume but I don't know enough about their specific situations to know if they have any other non-NATO aces up their sleeves. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:55 BronzeKnee wrote: They aren't. But their actions are very similar. Simply these comparisons start to get hilarious. I, for one, just treat Russia as by-design expansive country. | ||
|
whiteLotus
1833 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:46 Roman666 wrote: Seems that 4th article was finally invoked. lol it was invoked like 3 days ago by lithuania,poland and someone else, it does absolutely nothing. | ||
|
SilentchiLL
Germany1405 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:49 Ghanburighan wrote: Just report BronzeKnee and move on. Don't spam the thread, please. I usually don't report people I'm in an argument with out of principle to keep my own bias out of it, but you're right, we should really get back to the topic, I think that he ignored my last post is an indication that he's not out for a discussion and just likes to stirr up trouble. I don't know if it was mentioned before, but the US is currently preparing sanctions, the use of which are "likely". | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote: I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. What source is in question? The idea that Hitler and Germany weren't ready? Here ya go: http://southcarolina1670.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/allied-war-declaration-stunned-hitler/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/lesson31.htm How many sources do you need? On March 04 2014 04:50 r.Evo wrote: For someone who keeps misquoting Chamberlains pre-WW2 speech multiple times in this thread you're trying pretty damn hard to call others out on not being factual. Where did I quote Chamberlain's speech? I posted up a video of him making the speech... how could I have misquoted him? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote: I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. | ||
|
Taktik
Poland680 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:56 r.Evo wrote: The issue is that it's completely irrelevant who can take on who in a conventional war. Risking a war between nuclear powers because "in a conventional war we'd win easily" is a pretty dangerous game to play. Especially when it's about the pretty much only country in Europe Russia can get away with doing this to without risking escalating the situation themselves. Well, technically there is Finland and Sweden I assume but I don't know enough about their specific situations to know if they have any other non-NATO aces up their sleeves. I don't see what makes you so convinced that western leaders will step up to the plate in the hypothetical scenario where Russia decides to annex part of the baltics. Lithuania isn't exactly worth risking nuclear war over either. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
On March 04 2014 04:54 lolfail9001 wrote: So... since when Russia is 1930s Germany? Putin is a clown, why did you (Russians) leave him be the president for too long time? I say, come on, he supported yanukovich, one corrupt and incompetent guy, that only served to loss Ukraine from your sphere of influence. and now you are near to loss Sebastopool. | ||
| ||
