Biden Weighs Deploying Thousands Of Troops To Eastern Europe & Baltics

[aix_xpert]

Last I checked the Russians have more nukes than we do. The Czar bomba could look like it was going to destroy the world on its own. I was just curious about the subs. Their navy is something I don't know enough about. That's the scariest part of even talking about a possibility of USA v Russia. They can each destroy the world more than once. Fun discussion.

Here's my question to ponder... Who would push the big shiny Red button first? Russia? The US? China? We all talk about everyone's nukes, but I'm not concerned that any of the big 3 above will be the ones to use them first. Russia's been fighting in Syria for years and never did anything more than traditional warfare. Same when they 'invaded' Crimea. We spent the last 30 years in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet, never came close to using our nuclear arsenal.

The real question at hand. If Russia invades (and thus takes) Ukraine, will we fight a prolonged ground war to dislodge them? Much like the first Gulf war, it would take a ground fight to dislodge Russia from Ukraine, but we wouldn't invade Russia (as that would rightfully invite a nuclear war). I'm not sure if we'd even take back Crimea at this point. But unlike the Gulf War, this would be a ground fight against a well-equipped and determined foe that isn't likely to throw down their weapons and surrender the first time an A-10 flys over. Are we as a country prepared for that level of engagement and the casualties associated with it? This won't be like the Afghan war, where you have a couple dozens casualties per year.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Are we as a country prepared for that level of engagement?

So hard to invade and over take once Russia gets rooted in. We don't have the leadership in place to put forward s winning strategy. Milley and Brandon calling the shots? NATO that does not trust us? Germany that wants Russian LP gas? They get cut off on gas and there is not enough LP tankers to keep them going. Anyone notice what happened on our withdrawal with Afghanistan with this bunch in charge? If you don't invade with overwhelming force you have no chance. And getting in will be the slaughter of US soldiers. We already gave up the high ground. Some may not like me saying this, but as Americans we over value tremendously our ability to wage and win wars. The US played a major role in WW2, and we like to think we won it, but if you are honest about it, Russia paid a far bigger price and allowed forced the Nazis to spread themselves too thin. Russia lost over 20M lives in WW2, what the US (200K - 300K) lost is a fraction of that. Russia lured the Nazis in to their brutal winter homeland and slaughtered them, and Russia paid a very high price. I have always felt Russia played rope a dope with Germany and out lasted them. Putin said a few years ago the US always too much credit for winning the war, and on this I agree. Certainly, the bomb took Japan out and pretty much ended it.

What significant war has the US "won" since WW2? I would think long and hard about taking on Russia based on the current environment. Sacrifice in war? Russia knows what that means, over 20M dead. US is concerned about gender and bathrooms.

Brandon and his leaders asleep at the wheel, we are in check mate. This was a problem they should have addressed months ago but like everything else they are always late and screw everything up. Sleepy phucking Brandon is no joke and his whole crew of incompetent wokesters that manufacture fake problems they can solve, they have no idea, or the leadership, or the fortitude to take up real problems.

And who wants to go fight for a CIC that has been saying white nationalism is the greatest threat to our security? How about Milley who said he wants to understand white hatred? Those 2 need to be the first guys to invade.

NATO is divided right now, our own country is divided as hell. Who wants to go risk their lives for the great divider when what we needed was real diplomacy, and peace thru strength? How about taking your first year and further dividing the country? Forget military might, NATO and this country is not mentally ready for a war with Russia, especially when the US will start way down on the scoreboard due to incompetency. Some in the military is still not over what they thought was betrayal in how we left Afghanistan.

I am proud of anyone that serves our country, but no way in hell would I tell my grandson to go fight to the death to bail out a CIC that phucked this up so bad, starting with Brandon approving the Russian pipeline, that was a strategic move by Russia to finance their war and split NATO by bribing Germany with LP Gas. That was the first shot fired, and Brandon caved, and probably was paid off to do it.

I don't care to see American lives lost over the incompetence of our CIC and those that voted for Brandon. America will not be same from this, it simply will not. It could take awhile with a great President to regain our international stature.

Whole thing pisses me off frankly. Thanks to the DNC and the Dims they have taken this country to a very dark and depressing state of affairs. You can ask yourself how much worse can it get? Our allies don't respect and trust us, our enemies see us super weak and lacking our American values (see us destroying them), and at home we mostly really hate each other depending on your political values. Inflation racing past the increase in real wages, empty shelves, people addicted to COVID protocols for no reason, crime out of control, border wide open, a media that lies to us all, and just on and on. How much worse can it get? I am afraid it can, I am what Obama said about Brandon really has no bottom.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Here's my question to ponder... Who would push the big shiny Red button first? Russia? The US? China? We all talk about everyone's nukes, but I'm not concerned that any of the big 3 above will be the ones to use them first. Russia's been fighting in Syria for years and never did anything more than traditional warfare. Same when they 'invaded' Crimea. We spent the last 30 years in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet, never came close to using our nuclear arsenal.

The real question at hand. If Russia invades (and thus takes) Ukraine, will we fight a prolonged ground war to dislodge them? Much like the first Gulf war, it would take a ground fight to dislodge Russia from Ukraine, but we wouldn't invade Russia (as that would rightfully invite a nuclear war). I'm not sure if we'd even take back Crimea at this point. But unlike the Gulf War, this would be a ground fight against a well-equipped and determined foe that isn't likely to throw down their weapons and surrender the first time an A-10 flys over. Are we as a country prepared for that level of engagement and the casualties associated with it? This won't be like the Afghan war, where you have a couple dozens casualties per year.

Good question. Without being in armed conflict the two countries will use proxies to fight each other. The problem with a protracted ground war with two nations that have nukes, is that eventually one is going to be on the losing side. The desperation of losing a war is probably the most dangerous time in which either country would contemplate using nukes. MacArthur tried to urge Truman to use them on China during the Korean War after the US was pushed back by the Chinese. In the face of war that would change the political leadership of the country what would each one do to try and survive?

The second danger is an accidental launch, which almost happened in Russia during the Cold War. It's one of the reason the two countries have a hot phone line to each all the time or at least they did. Their computers malfunctioned, and they desperately tried to stop a launch. In the end they did but it was close.

 

[aix_xpert]

Good question. Without being in armed conflict the two countries will use proxies to fight each other. The problem with a protracted ground war with two nations that have nukes, is that eventually one is going to be on the losing side. The desperation of losing a war is probably the most dangerous time in which either country would contemplate using nukes. MacArthur tried to urge Truman to use them on China during the Korean War after the US was pushed back by the Chinese. In the face of war that would change the political leadership of the country what would each one do to try and survive?

The second danger is an accidental launch, which almost happened in Russia during the Cold War. It's one of the reason the two countries have a hot phone line to each all the time or at least they did. Their computers malfunctioned, and they desperately tried to stop a launch. In the end they did but it was close.

As long as the fights are over proxies, I don't see either side using nukes. Russia isn't going to nuke American soldiers in Ukraine, and it certainly isn't going to launch at the US or Western Europe, UNLESS it feels that we are invading the motherland. Hopefully if Biden gets us involved in the Ukraine, he won't be dumb enough to have Americans touch foot in Russia proper.

There's is 3rd concern that I actually consider more likely than your 2nd concern: False flag operations. If a war between the US and Russia did break out over the Ukraine, then its only logical that Russia would have to stop selling its oil and gas to Europe, which would leave them looking for buyers. China would have significant pricing power to gets its Coal, Oil and Gas needs met by Russia (instead of the West), and Russia which has previously been hesitant about getting to 'in-bed' with China wouldn't have a choice. That's just one false flag scenario which would be plausible. I'd certainly not put it past certain 'warhawks' in our national agencies from considering a Russian 'false flag' attack to help accelerate us towards what they perceive as Russia's come-uppance.

 

[Rdcldad]

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

The real question at hand. If Russia invades (and thus takes) Ukraine, will we fight a prolonged ground war to dislodge them?

Unlikely, I would put this at zero. If NATO was in first Russia will not attack either.

Whoever gets in first wins.

BUT another possibility is a land grab as both rush in and set a new border with DMZ aka Korea.

Much like the first Gulf war, it would take a ground fight to dislodge Russia from Ukraine, but we wouldn't invade Russia (as that would rightfully invite a nuclear war). I'm not sure if we'd even take back Crimea at this point. But unlike the Gulf War, this would be a ground fight against a well-equipped and determined foe that isn't likely to throw down their weapons and surrender the first time an A-10 flys over. Are we as a country prepared for that level of engagement and the casualties associated with it? This won't be like the Afghan war, where you have a couple dozens casualties per year.

Also not likely.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

As long as the fights are over proxies, I don't see either side using nukes. Russia isn't going to nuke American soldiers in Ukraine, and it certainly isn't going to launch at the US or Western Europe, UNLESS it feels that we are invading the motherland. Hopefully if Biden gets us involved in the Ukraine, he won't be dumb enough to have Americans touch foot in Russia proper.

There's is 3rd concern that I actually consider more likely than your 2nd concern: False flag operations. If a war between the US and Russia did break out over the Ukraine, then its only logical that Russia would have to stop selling its oil and gas to Europe, which would leave them looking for buyers. China would have significant pricing power to gets its Coal, Oil and Gas needs met by Russia (instead of the West), and Russia which has previously been hesitant about getting to 'in-bed' with China wouldn't have a choice. That's just one false flag scenario which would be plausible. I'd certainly not put it past certain 'warhawks' in our national agencies from considering a Russian 'false flag' attack to help accelerate us towards what they perceive as Russia's come-uppance.

I would agree with that. Proxies no nukes. If its Russia v USA the one that is losing is the primary concern.

I know everyone thinks that these war-hawks exist but can you point me to one? I'm not trying to down play what our military industrial complex may or may not be doing, but I don't know who would be considered a war-hawk so stupid as to want a war with Russia. If I were president I would kick that guy to the curb faster than you can say "I". Biden might be a bit slower and use the word "Me"....at least I would like to think so.

 

[aix_xpert]

I would agree with that. Proxies no nukes. If its Russia v USA the one that is losing is the primary concern.

I know everyone thinks that these war-hawks exist but can you point me to one? I'm not trying to down play what our military industrial complex may or may not be doing, but I don't know who would be considered a war-hawk so stupid as to want a war with Russia. If I were president I would kick that guy to the curb faster than you can say "I". Biden might be a bit slower and use the word "Me"....at least I would like to think so.

Bolton was one. I hated his appointment by Trump, for the record. As for who is there now, I don't know. I do know that D.C. has a major hang-up on Russia being this giant bogeyman and has ever since Hillary lost.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Bolton was one. I hated his appointment by Trump, for the record. As for who is there now, I don't know. I do know that D.C. has a major hang-up on Russia being this giant bogeyman and has ever since Hillary lost.

You may be on to something there. It was Democrats that where hyper aggressive with Russia. They also blame Trump on them. Many of Biden's advisors are what I would call boarding on radicalism. They may believe the Russian narrative and are angry at Russia. The other problem there is I don't have any respect for Biden's foreign policy advisement, and they may also not have a good understanding of what Russian is and what they are capable of. That would be a recipe for disaster.