The problem is that those strategic interests are opposite to thise of the US. Allowing Putin to achieve them would be worse for the Europeans in the short run. Middle term the costs to the US would almost certainly be very painful nonetheless.
The first Russian killed by Nato is already dead.
If the consequences are so important to Europe then why isn't Europe more pro-active in doing something about it? Why is the U.S. going solo on this mission? It's not important to Europeans and it's not important to the U.S. interests. It's about cockblocking Russia and that's all.
The U.S. gains nothing in Syria. In fact U.S. actions in Syria are negative value. Russia has a definite strategic interest in Syria while the U.S. does not. Furthermore the U.S. is siding with ISIS/AL-QAEDA/TERRORISTS by trying to overthrow Assad.
i mean in any more of these attacks
You really think they would get huffy about that? Sure, hitting their barracks or sinking their carrier. But they've lost a lot of people in Ukraine. They don't seem very disturbed about that. The only thing they are interested in down there is to be able to project power into the Near East and Mediterranean.
Putin is a leader of a nation and if Russians are being killed because of American action, he will receive a great deal of pressure from his people to act in some way.
He handled the situation, when Turkey shot down their plane without starting wwiii.
That is not to say that there is no risk at all. But it would stem less from an accidental hit or if the destroyed assets are on Syrian bases.
Huh? You miss the history lesson covering the motivations that lead up to WWII? What you said above is literally one of the biggest variables that pushed Germany into a war stance.
Lol...Russian provocations? You spell the U.S. and NATO provocations wrong.
Prior to WWII there was no global economy, at least not to the extent that there is today.
Russia's highly dependent on revenues gained from natural gas piped into Western Europe.
If Russia goes to war with NATO, that revenue will be grind to a halt.
And when I said Russian provocations I meant the following....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-buzz-u-s-ship-rules-of-engagement/index.html
The Russians couldn't stop our cruise missiles with 20 planes, much less TWO!!!
Our warships are invulnerable to their backward technology.
If they want a war......BRING IT!
We'll exterminate them and the world will be a better place. We can supply Europe with all the fossil fuels they need.......at the right price.
:2usflag:
For one they have an exellent air defense system, that is no joke to mess with. Two even though the russian navy is inferior to ours, and lacks force projection, they are designed for defense, to the extent any navy battle with them in their own waters would end in a stalemate or the us navy retreating unless the us navy concentrated it's forces solely on russia.
Third their current air fleet is more advanced that ours due to decades of lethargic advances and funding. Our f-35 when fully functional will blow their new jets out of the water, plus their updated migs as well. However our big issue has been putting everything in the f-22 and the f-35, the f-22 was scrapped, while the f-35 is in limited numbers, due to technichal issues halting adoption. They have progressed their fighter jets since the cold war, while ours are updated versions of cold war jets.
We have the superior army, navy and airforce, even with their recent advancements in tanks and aircraft, we have the better trained and equipped overall force. It is however a grave mistake to assume a bring it on position, as the most powerful military in the world and the second most powerful fighting it out would end nothing short of a bloodbath.
They got nothing.
We could beat their air force with F-16s. Their technology is inferior and unreliable and their few good pilots still lack the superior training that U.S. pilots receive.
Remember Al Capp's "Lower Slobbovia?" That was Russia. Still is.
Our military ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY tries to make it look like the enemy is a giant, unbeatable boogyman.
That's part of a strategy to get even more money.
We could easily beat the whole world in a world war.......we wouldn't have to use more than a few nukes.
:2usflag:
You are clearly not very knowledgeable on warfare if you believe such.
Or I'm not so easily brainwashed by Military/Industrial Complex propaganda.
:2usflag:
Fact: Russia will do nothing because they know how outmatched they are.
If you want to worry about something......worry about North Korea--who could kill MILLIONS of South Koreans and Japanese with chemical weapons delivered by artillery and missiles.
The damage to Japan alone could crash the world economy.
:2usflag:
I do not need any propoganda, I served in the military, and have seen even the outdated junk you claim russia has but has not used for a while, used by insurgents and terrorists. They were still quite effective even when used by untrained people, making the mistake of thinking everyone who usues that gear must be as inadequate as them is a mistake.
They were the number one rival during the cold war because they were the second most powerful military and country on earth, second only to the united states. If they were as inferior as you claimed, they never would have been a rival and instead laughed at, but that did not happen.
Russias military is more powerful than north koreas and chinas.
The U.S. gains nothing in Syria. In fact U.S. actions in Syria are negative value. Russia has a definite strategic interest in Syria while the U.S. does not. Furthermore the U.S. is siding with ISIS/AL-QAEDA/TERRORISTS by trying to overthrow Assad.
I'm a retired Air Force Historian and Russia is seen as a joke by those who know their real capabilities.......been a joke for a long time.
:2usflag:
And Russia knows enough not to challenge America to war.......so does China.
North Korea is another story.......they could do horrible damage to South Korea and Japan......check my post above.
:2usflag:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?