France wants Russia on war crimes charges

[Kellhound]

USA, at no point in history, save for a short period after the collapse of USSR, had the ability to force Russia's hand militarily. I don't want to stroke the ego of Russians any longer, but your self-assesment is highly misplaced. There is a reason why you couldn't engage in a war with USSR and kept it "cold", and why you can't tease, let alone confront Russian jets in Aleppo while shouting loudly how Russia is bombing civilians.

Conventionally the US has the ability to decimate the Russian military, do not delude yourself.

[Skroe]

USA, at no point in history, save for a short period after the collapse of USSR, had the ability to force Russia's hand militarily. I don't want to stroke the ego of Russians any longer, but your self-assesment is highly misplaced. There is a reason why you couldn't engage in a war with USSR and kept it "cold", and why you can't tease, let alone confront Russian jets in Aleppo while shouting loudly how Russia is bombing civilians.

After 1965 the United States's military programs, spurred in response to the growth of Russian military power in the 1950s, had eclipsed the Soviet Union. By the mid 1980s, the modern gulf opened, and it continues to open.

[Kuntantee]

Well the West didnt build theese institutions to bring ourselves down, we love double standards and it works quite well in our favour, but I guess it do speak to Russias favour, that we're "only" talking about war crimes, and not trying to remove Putin, as we've done with others.

I'm sure noone expects Putin to show up at court, but using it as a pressure tool isnt stupid imo.

When people say West, they mean France, USA, UK and Germany. Not Denmark. When "West" is trying to remove someone, which is generally just USA, they don't report to Denmark...

[caervek]

This contrasts with, 15 years ago, when Russia was indisputably #2.

You mean 25, 15 years ago was 2001 and the only reason Russia was better off back then was because their rusted ships/subs hadn't sunk yet :P

[Kuntantee]

Conventionally the US has the ability to decimate the Russian military, go not delude yourself.

Conventionally, USA has zero chance to penetrate into Russia.

[Skroe]

which ass have you pulled it from, expert? Lets hope you got the balls to answer it this time, w/o pretending you haven't noticed it, like you did last time.

Around 2000, despite being a fraction of the size and power of the USSR, the Russian Federation was brought into various international forums and treated as the successor state to the Soviet Union in terms of rights and responsibilities. It was treated far more as an equal to the US than it is today. This was intentional of course, as part of the US strategy for a "soft landing" for the ex-USSR.

Nowdays? Russia is involved in few decisions of global scale. Post-financial crisis G20 discussions, global financial reform, climate change treaties... except with respect to Nuclear Weapons issues, Russia doesn't have a seat at the table anymore.

It's seat was taken by China, which 15 years ago was a marginal power with a lot of promise. Today, it's power eclipses Russia.

Russia's mostly meaningless shenningans in the Asia-Pacific the last few months is a vain attempt at them trying to be relevant in a region they're far removed from but is more important than anyplace were they are concerned.

[Kuntantee]

After 1965 the United States's military programs, spurred in response to the growth of Russian military power in the 1950s, had eclipsed the Soviet Union. By the mid 1980s, the modern gulf opened, and it continues to open.

USA might have a better military tech. but tech isn't the sole factor in a war. Russia is at best one generation behind USA, tech. wise. The gap is not big enough to force Russia's hands militarily. That's pretty much how they did what they did against USA in Syria.

[caervek]

Had the US wanted to, it could have destroyed the Syrian AF and all Russian aircraft in Syria in short order.

NOM8, the Syrian AF at the start was getting support from Iran, Tomcat escorts with Phoenix missiles, nothing beats the Phoenix missile!

(obviously this post is tongue in cheek)

[Deleted]

so any thoughts or comments on the indiscriminate bombing of Aleppo and the intentional targeting of hospitals, resulting in the death of hundreds of civilians over a single weekend? Both of which amount to warcrimes.

Lately everything is considered a war crime. The hospitals in those areas also serve to the rebels, it'd consider it a crime that rebels so easily use a hospital in the hopes of deterring an attack. But if you stick to your argument than you'd want the US to answer for the bombing of a hospital in irag too, which happened last year..

[Kellhound]

Conventionally, USA has zero chance to penetrate into Russia.

They have a very good chance of it should they decide to, since it would just be Kaliningrad being invaded most likely, with Norway, Latvia and Estonia defended.

[LilSaihah]

Conventionally, USA has zero chance to penetrate into Russia.

The idea of Russia being utterly impervious to American aggression is just strange. The only reason anyone puts up with their shit is a mix of their inconsequentiality and wanting to make sure that their nukes don't mysteriously go 'missing'.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian winter were more of an impediment than any military capacity the Russians have.

[Kuntantee]

Syria is not a core interest for any of them. Also the leader of that group, the US, has a President who defines core interests extremely narrowly (far, far too narrowly). It is more "hobby" than anything else. It is far more important to Russia than the United States, which is far more focused on Asia and Europe.

Were the west invested in Syria the way Russia is, this would have been very over a long time ago. Assad would have been strung up from a lamp post to the horror of Putin and the outrage of Putnistas everywhere. How do I know this? Because we lived that scenario with Libya, where Russia didn't do shit.

I could use the same argument in Libya and claim Russia didn't care Libya that much, which is why West got (I guess) what they wanted in there.

[Kellhound]

USA might have a better military tech. but tech isn't the sole factor in a war. Russia is at best one generation behind USA, tech. wise. The gap is not big enough to force Russia's hands militarily. That's pretty much how they did what they did against USA in Syria.

The gap in training is even larger, as is the gap in logistical capability. Worse tech, worse training, worse logistics, not a winning combo.

[Skroe]

You mean 25, 15 years ago was 2001 and the only reason Russia was better off back then was because their rusted ships/subs hadn't sunk yet :P

No I mean 15 years ago.

You make the Putinista's mistake (not that you're one), that a few new ships and a new coat of paint change the fundamentals.

Russia's power hasn't declined because of anything Russia did for the most part (although that is a minority part of it). Russia's power declined because the EU, and then China, rose and displaced it's importance.

Even the US's relative power as very modestly declined because of that, but not nearly to the same degree because on the level the world's only superpower operates on compared to the regional / continental powers. Again, How can the Eurasian continent have three, bordering, continental powers all of near equal strength? It can't. As the EU rose and grew, Russia's near abroad domain shrunk (hence Russian action in Ukraine, to forestall more of that). As China rose in power, Russia's global significance on all matters sharply declined (hence it's aggressive international posture since Putin returned, to keep a "seat at the table"). China started to be the non-Western alternative. Russia's place in that role faded.

The fact is, the world had less major actors 15 years ago. There was the United States, there were individual European countries that didn't have the global footprint the matured EU has since allowed it to have. There was Russia, the USSR successor state essentially in the #2 spot. Elsewhere we had China that was still tremendously backwards and Japan, at the tail of the "Lost decade" and still reeling from the Asian Financial Crisis.

Russia 15 years ago was powerful because the world had less competitors for power. Today? There are far more. That's true for the US too. It will have to fight to keep it's power, mostly versus China which wants what it has.

[Vetis]

didnt see them making similar threads to the UK and Us - how many civilians have our bombs, troops and drones killed? Stinks of pro-us pressure.

[caervek]

A metric light year doesn't exists

Technically as light years were calculated in metric using metric tools (160mm heliometer) they are essentially a metric measurement. A light year is 9.4 Petametres this is equal to an imperial light year (5.8786×1012 mi).

[Kuntantee]

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian winter were more of an impediment than any military capacity the Russians have.

Only to French army.

[LilSaihah]

Only to French army.

So the Americans will be a-okay!

[caervek]

They have a very good chance of it should they decide to, since it would just be Kaliningrad being invaded most likely, with Norway, Latvia and Estonia defended.

In fairness Kaliningrad is an exclave, any argument about how easy it would be to invade applies to Alaska too. North Korea could invade Alaska if they were stupid enough, it doesn't mean anything.

[W1sp]

Well like I said in my first post, no he will not ask for the US to be taken to court because that has obvious negative consequences for France. I am not arguing that there is not a hypocrisy in there somewhere, but watching country "x" do something bad and then saying well what about country "y" is not my first reaction when I hear international condemnations.

I would agree that many of them people who wanted to go to Iraq are still in power and because of that, as a citizen, I will not vote for them.

At the end of the day though, I will not blame Hollande because there might be an apparent double standard in how he treats Russian and the US. There is to it than just "cozy feelings to one but not the other".

By that logic and from the logic inthe previous post you made then the Russian people should not be held accountable the same way the American people should not be. Or am I missing something in what you are saying?

Edited for spelling