Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I think their reasoning was valid . The East / West alliances had rough parity and this kept the peace in Europe .
No it didn't.... by including all the tiny states the chances of some conflict starting and the allies on each side being drawn into a war that they had no interest in other than they signed a piece of paper saying they would help if they got into a scrap is the dumbest defence concept anyone could think of... it doesn't make large scale wars more likely... it makes the inevitable...
The problem now is that these coalitions in Europe now favour the West against the East . Then balance of forces is broken , and this leads to instability and war .
The balance is nukes on both sides... the conventional forces are irrelevant.
The smart thing to do is to form smart alliances as you suggest . And these should be allowed and do form . And they should be dissolved , once conflicts subside . Otherwise they constitute a source of instability .
And such alliance is a threat to the rest, which requires countering... which is the opposite of what everyone wants.
In Europe , in case of tensions , a coalition may form that involves say France and Britain to confront or deter Russia alone or an alliance of Russia and say Germany . This may be a spontaneous temporary arrangement that stops full scale war . This is a natural evolution of local conditions . Will keep the peace . A smart arrangement .
Except it wont prevent any conflict an will force each side to gather more and more allies till war becomes necessary and inevitable...
And that is assuming you can actually trust those you signed agreements with.
Most of Europe signed some sort of agreement with Germany in the years leading up to WWII... not only did it not stop the war, it actually gave Germany more confidence and made it more likely and more widespread in its scope.
One way to allow for smart alliances , is to allow nations an adequate national defence force . And the other is to avoid formation of super-alliances , that are unnecessary .
the only way to avoid alliances would be for everyone to have nukes so you don't need alliances...
As I said before, Russia needs to live up to NATzO's propaganda caricature and then NATzO will be shitting its pants.
Russia wont improve its situation by having the US scared of it... the best way to improve Russias future is to disengage with the west and look to the rest of the world for trade and growth and development.
Putin could use his nuclear threat for psychological purposes much more effectively, but he does not.
Putin is smart enough to know when Russia launches nukes it is over for everyone.
The Thunderbird and Poseidon were good moves to emphasise that these are doomsday weapons, but being reckless with nukes makes you look unstable and Russia needs to convince the rest of the world to trade with Russia.
We've wasted so much time.
The only thing that has changed here where I live is a few houses built in the 1950s and 1960s have been knocked down and replaced with brand new flats.... usually three or four with the land subdivided.
Otherwise not much has changed, no new factories, most factory work has gone... the Cadbury chocolate factory has closed, Fisher & Paekel has shifted production to Mexico, the woolen mills are gone, we have a fashion industry now instead of a fabrics industry, we don't assemble cars here any more, and our aluminium smelter is shutting down as is our oil refinery at Marsden point.
Look at with what forces Russia entered S. Ossetia with in 2008. T-62s FFS.
A backwater region has units equipped with old equipment... that is just normal. And it seemed to work just fine anyway.
What was preventing Russia from starting modernization of its military sooner, to start giving big orders to its military-industrial complex? Just corruption and complacency?
So the upgrade of the Russian military is transformational and you complain they could have started a few years before... clearly you are a glass half full guy.
Truth is, without the rise of China and Iran's resistance, we'd have been done for long ago. Our leaders spent this whole time sitting on their laurels.
The west is a bully, if it wasn't China and Iran it would be other countries getting in their way.
If it's not war, it's the banks. If it's not the banks, it's corruption. If it's not corruption, it's the bad infrastructure. It's always something but our elites spend 10 years fixing each problem. And not all in parallel, as you would expect to be possible - but exactly sequentially, one after the other
Well they don't have the option to just print more money... so which solution is better... low taxes but balancing budgets and putting money into rainy day reserves, or printing money and spending big on that huge military colossus you are going to need when other countries stop accepting your money.
?
