Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[Deadstick]

NATO doesn't need Sevastopol. The Black Sea is and always has been a military backwater. It's only value to Russia is that it is ice free year-round.

Maybe but they wanted it to prevent Russia from having it, Putin knew this and acted.

 

[Deadstick]

That is not what I said. However, it is a likely outcome.

Iran was never under the kind of sanctions that Russia is under. And they have never been under the kind of one man rule that Russia is under now. Even under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the government after the Islamic Revolution was not a single man rule but by a panel of 82 (now 88) jurists who operate along the lines of both a legislature and a Supreme Court. The government may be brutal, but the leadership had never been that totalitarian and entirely in the hands of a single person, even under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini or their current Supreme Leader or President.

Russia on the other hand is very much run by a single individual, and that is far more unstable than even a brutal government run essentially by a committee. It would be more akin to compare the rule of Russia today to that of Stalin's USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, or General Franco's Spain (who is still after 48 years in a valiant struggle to remain dead). In each of those when the leader died, their government did not last much longer. And after Stalin, the government of the USSR did not collapse but it did take a strong shift into another direction.

Stop repeating nonsense, it may make you feel better, but Russia is not under one man rule, they have elections and a Parliament it's just that they don't take orders from the US.

 

[Deadstick]

Who says I support the government?

You like so many have a major "black and white" thinking problem.

And 2014 was not a coup, it was a revolution. There is a major difference between the two. And a major issue was the restoration of the 2004 Constitution, which had been set aside and replaced by a "Constitutional Court" that was appointed by the then President. And only then "Russia took action"? Oh yes, invading and annexing a major part of a country is really "taking action".

Revolutions don't overthrow elected Governments and Presidents, that's what happened in Ukraine financed and directed by the US and it's vassals, F.. the EU Nuland and insane McCain were never out of Kiev causing trouble, mistake Yanukovych made was not declaring martial law and having those two morons arrested at the airport then put on the next flight out.

 

[Deadstick]

By that strange definition, then I guess the US would be fully entitled to invade Mexico in order to remove the naro-terrorists that are controlling large parts of the country now.

No but they would be entitled to invade Mexico if a rabid anti US dictator was in power who starting killing any US citizens living in Mexico, then invited Russian or Chinese forces into Mexico to set up military bases along the Rio Grand.

 

[Mushroom]

And rightly so.

When you commit an act of national prostitution, when you rent your national territory to serve the geopolitical interests of foreign powers in exchange for protection, endangering the national security of your neighbors you run the risk of finding yourself on the receiving end of their bombs, specially when all the diplomatic efforts are exhausted.

Can you please speak in English and not mindless nonsensical political speak?

 

[Mushroom]

I see, so the plan is to 'wait' for the time when Putin loses the power for one reason or another.

Wow, yet another with clearly black and white thinking.

Did I ever say that was the likely outcome, or the only one?

No. I never said that, so please stop acting like I did say that.

 

[Mushroom]

No but they would be entitled to invade Mexico if a rabid anti US dictator was in power who starting killing any US citizens living in Mexico, then invited Russian or Chinese forces into Mexico to set up military bases along the Rio Grand.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Once again, you have a horrible problem in sticking with facts, let alone a single stable narrative that does not swing wildly all over the place at a whim.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Can you please speak in English and not mindless nonsensical political speak?

I think he's basically saying Go **** yourself, dickhead. Is that English enough?

 

[Mushroom]

Maybe but they wanted it to prevent Russia from having it, Putin knew this and acted.

What in the hell does that have to do with reality?

Are you even aware that Russia had a long term lease on the Navy base there? And the lease was not even up for renewal until 2042?

Once again you show a complete lack of any real understanding and simply babble on about things made up in your own mind.

Look up the multiple treaties about this very area and you might know some actual facts. Like the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997, which allowed Russia to lease the port for an undisclosed period of time. The Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet in 1997, which affirmed the same status.

Then in 2010, the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas Treaty, which extended the base lease for 25 years after the current lease ended (2017), so the lease would continue until 2042.

So once again, your very claim once again is a lie. The expiration of the current treaty was 28 years in the future when Russia invaded and annexed the area.

Once again, I laugh as I prove actual history and facts, and blast away your silly nonsense that has absolutely nothing to back it up. The base was on a long term lease, and had decades to go before it expired. Yet you make some stupid silly claim that Ukraine was going to give it to somebody else?

Who? Because nobody else would have wanted or needed that base. It was only of use and interest to Russia and nobody else.

Please, oh please try doing some actual research and presenting some facts instead of silly claims with nothing to back them up. This is really tedious.

 

[Mushroom]

I think he's basically saying Go **** yourself, dickhead. Is that English enough?

Well, is about what I expect from a great many in here that have the actual mental abilities of a geranium. And have no comprehension of actual facts and just go on endlessly with nothing to back up what they are blabbering about.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Well, is about what I expect from a great many in here that have the actual mental abilities of a geranium. And have no comprehension of actual facts and just go on endlessly with nothing to back up what they are blabbering about.

What you have been blabbering about is backed up by the MSM bulshit only so what mental abilities are you on?

 

[Deadstick]

By that strange definition, then I guess the US would be fully entitled to invade Mexico in order to remove the naro-terrorists that are controlling large parts of the country now.

No but they would be entitled to invade Mexico if a rabid anti US dictator was in power who starting killing any US citizens living in Mexico, then invited Russian or Chinese forces into Mexico to set up military bases along the Rio Grand.

What in the hell does that have to do with reality?

Are you even aware that Russia had a long term lease on the Navy base there? And the lease was not even up for renewal until 2042?

Once again you show a complete lack of any real understanding and simply babble on about things made up in your own mind.

Look up the multiple treaties about this very area and you might know some actual facts. Like the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997, which allowed Russia to lease the port for an undisclosed period of time. The Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet in 1997, which affirmed the same status.

Then in 2010, the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas Treaty, which extended the base lease for 25 years after the current lease ended (2017), so the lease would continue until 2042.

So once again, your very claim once again is a lie. The expiration of the current treaty was 28 years in the future when Russia invaded and annexed the area.

Once again, I laugh as I prove actual history and facts, and blast away your silly nonsense that has absolutely nothing to back it up. The base was on a long term lease, and had decades to go before it expired. Yet you make some stupid silly claim that Ukraine was going to give it to somebody else?

Who? Because nobody else would have wanted or needed that base. It was only of use and interest to Russia and nobody else.

Please, oh please try doing some actual research and presenting some facts instead of silly claims with nothing to back them up. This is really tedious.

Off course i know it clown, after the Coup all bets were off it was a different ball game, if those Kiev Nazis can overthrow the elected Government they are capable of forcing the Russians out of that black sea base, they have proved a small thing like an agreement wouldn't have stopped them as we saw with Minsk 2.

 

[Deadstick]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Once again, you have a horrible problem in sticking with facts, let alone a single stable narrative that does not swing wildly all over the place at a whim.

You are the one who brought Mexico into the debate.

 

[Dayton3]

James F. Dunigan writing in "How To Make War" that "Mexico is no threat to the United States but if it ever becomes one the U.S. "reacts pronto"

 

[Deadstick]

James F. Dunigan writing in "How To Make War" that "Mexico is no threat to the United States but if it ever becomes one the U.S. "reacts pronto"

Yes indeed, the US invaded little old Grenada they said was a threat because some Cuban construction workers were building an airport, they made it look like Iwo Jima.

 

[Dayton3]

Yes indeed, the US invaded little old Grenada they said was a threat because some Cuban construction workers were building an airport, they made it look like Iwo Jima.

It could easily have become one

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes indeed, the US invaded little old Grenada they said was a threat because some Cuban construction workers were building an airport, they made it look like Iwo Jima.

They weren't building an airport. Grenada already had an airport that was fine for their needs. They were building an airfield to base Bear and backfire bombers. It still doesn't justify invading.

 

[Dayton3]

They weren't building an airport. Grenada already had an airport that was fine for their needs. They were building an airfield to base Bear and backfire bombers. It still doesn't justify invading.

Why not?

 

[ESay]

Wow, yet another with clearly black and white thinking.

Did I ever say that was the likely outcome, or the only one?

No. I never said that, so please stop acting like I did say that.

Man, I see strange dodging from your part. When I asked you a direct question what would mark an 'end' of the Ukraine war, you got on some reasoning about regime change in Russia. And after that you claimed it is not 'the most likely outcome.

Okay, I will ask you another direct question. What is the most likely outcome in your opinion?

 

[Deadstick]

They weren't building an airport. Grenada already had an airport that was fine for their needs. They were building an airfield to base Bear and backfire bombers. It still doesn't justify invading.

I doubt that very much, any actual evidence?