The United States and Russia end the INF Treaty - The Post Cold War Era is Finished

[Skroe]

Russia is "pale shadow of it's former self" in conventional forces; they were cut while even Yeltsin in disastrous 90's fully funded nuclear.

It was conscious choice because nuclear simply provided "more bang for a buck".

Of course Russia's current problem is that it's too poor to afford both necessary modernization and simultaneous sustainment, without unilaterally disarming.

Everything you need to know about Russia's nuclear arsenal comes down to this: they sail 1 Delta III, 6 Delta IVs, 1 Typhoon and 3 Boreis. They are respectively armed with the R-29R (Delta III), the R-29RMU2 (Delta IV), and RSM-56 Bulava (Typhoon, Borei). The Bulava's, lets remember, have major reliability issues despite entering service 7 years ago.

That is, in case you're wondering, 4 very different classes of submarines, each with their own standing industrial base to support them, and all but the Borei's past, at or near the end of their service lives. That is three SLBM models, two very dated and one modern. The R29RMU2, for example, has a CEP of 350 meters (as does the Bulava).

By contrast the United States has one class of SSBN in service - the Ohio class. It is building the Columbia class. This is the build/retirement schedule from the 30 year shipbuilding plan.

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/..._SHIP_PLAN.pdf
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54564
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf




The Navy will build the first Columbia class in 2021, then the second in 2024, and then starting in 2026, it'll build one a year for 10 years, resulting in 12 subs. Simultaneously, it'll retire the first SSBN in 2027, the next in 2029, then one a year from 2030-2039, but also replacing them at a rate of one (or two) a year.

As for their armament, the Ohio class is armed with the Trident II D5LE. But this is the fun part. The Trident II D5LE rebuilt over half a new missile, under the guise of modernization. It improved the CEP from 90m to 5m and included a new "Superfuse" you can read about here. The technical abilities is interesting... but what's permentient here is that the D5LE program started in 2002, started actually "upgrading" missiles in 2013 (read: rebuilt them), and will be completed in 2023. Almost all the Trident II D5s have been updated to the "D5LE configuration" as of now, and the program over the next 4 years will be about updating the remaining ones and building new missiles. The US Navy buys exactly 28 a year, without fail. All of this data is in the document below.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...R_Dec_2017.pdf


And thus we now have the contrast. This is a microcosm of the issue Russia has and has ALWAYS had with Military modernization since 1992. Russia keeps its vintage stuff forever. When will those Delta IVs retire? When will that last Typhoon retire? When will it be an all Bulava arsenal? Apparently never because a year ago the government decided to do another maintience cycle on the Delta IVs and their SLBMs to keep them in service longer.

Meanwhile the US will have, by 2023, updated every single one of it's SLBMs to one model. And as the Columbia class arrives, it will rapidly retire the Ohios at a rate of one per year as the Columbias enter service. One Ohio out, one Columbia in. And keep in mind, it's not like the Ohio is a piece of crap that has to be junked. THey could easily have been modernized and gone through another refueling cycle. But replacing them is more cost effective then keeping them, modernizing them, and operating some of them along side the Ohios. Not mentioned here, but on the image above, is that the first Ohios to go will be the oldest 4, the Ohio class SSGNs, that were converted to Cruise Missile Submarines in the 2000s to keep the US within START I limits.

When the US completes its replacement of the fleet with all-Columbia's carrying all Trident II D5LEs, it will be the second time it did it. In the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, it did the same thing, when it rapidly replaced the the '41 for Freedom' classes of submarines, armed with a hodge podge of Polaris A3, Poseidon C3 and a some Trident I C4s (all on the James Madison and Benjamin Franklin classes) with the Ohio class, first armed with the Trident I C4, and then in the 1990s with the Trident II D5. The last Trident I was withdrawn (from an Ohio) in 2004. Point is, the US didn't hold onto anything. It picked one sub, one missile, and converted as fast as possible.

Russia isn't stupid. It's wanted to have an all-Borei, all-Bulava fleet since the early 2000s. But it can't do it. It can't build the Borei's and Bulava fast enough without more money. It can't get more money without rapidly retiring the Delta IVs and their missiles (most of all). If it does that, it'll unilaterally disarm until the Borei's enter service.

The interesting thing about this is that it's been essentially stuck in this same position for many years now, across many programs, and can't seem to find its way out. Even with land vehicles and aircraft. It keeps modernizing the cheap Soviet vintage models, rather than buying modern designs. In case you missed it, Armata and The Su-57 basically aren't happening. It's T-84s and Su-27 derivatives forever, apparently.

If I were Vladimir Putin, I would have mass retired all this vintage stuff while the US was mired in the Iraq War. Now? It's too late. The US build up is accelerating. Money is not being spent to fight insurgents, but on high end weapons. But back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011? In the midst of the commodities boom? I would have gutted everything not a Borei and just relied on mobile land based launchers until Borei and Bulava were good to go. Russia will never have an opportunity like that- the US stuck in a quagmire that drains money towards counterinsurgency, simultaneous with a commodity boom - ever again.

That's the sad fact of Russian modernization issues. Delta IVs counterparts in another 10 years are going to be American SSBNs two generations of strategic missile submarine more advanced than it.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea that "X party is violating the treaty in Y way and therefore it makes sense to abandon it" is the kind of thing that would make the writers of the treaty facepalm so hard. A few of the "people in the room" have been making the rounds on NPR and such these last few months, and they've explained the rational behind the treaty fairly well: not a single person on either side expected that anyone would adhere fully to this treaty. They were absolutely certain that both parties would be pushing boundaries or violating it altogether where they could. The point was to dramatically slow the arms race, and to change the nature of it, not to magically and miraculously end it.

This isn't a scarier time because we're leaving the treaty. It's a scary time because we've become too stupid to understand it.

The US tried to bring Russia into compliance since 2008. Bush handed it off to Obama who handed it off to Trump. They all worked on it. Especially Obama, who worked on it very quietly towards the end of his term (though he dropped the ball on it in the early and middle to middle late). They all failed.

Simple fact is, nothing the US could give Russia is as good as Russia is getting by violating it.

Post 14 in this thread here goes into why that is in detail.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post50809408

[Shalcker]

Everything you need to know about Russia's nuclear arsenal comes down to this: they sail 1 Delta III, 6 Delta IVs, 1 Typhoon and 3 Boreis. They are respectively armed with the R-29R (Delta III), the R-29RMU2 (Delta IV), and RSM-56 Bulava (Typhoon, Borei). The Bulava's, lets remember, have major reliability issues despite entering service 7 years ago.

Had major reliability issues.

Just like F-35 still has major reliability issues.

Russia isn't stupid. It's wanted to have an all-Borei, all-Bulava fleet since the early 2000s. But it can't do it. It can't build the Borei's and Bulava fast enough without more money. It can't get more money without rapidly retiring the Delta IVs and their missiles (most of all). If it does that, it'll unilaterally disarm until the Borei's enter service.

Or perhaps Russia just doesn't focus on submarines because we're perfectly content with mobile ground-based launchers.

And undersea future is autonomous nuclear drones anyway, not submarines.

If I were Vladimir Putin, I would have mass retired all this vintage stuff while the US was mired in the Iraq War. Now? It's too late. The US build up is accelerating. Money is not being spent to fight insurgents, but on high end weapons. But back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011? In the midst of the commodities boom? I would have gutted everything not a Borei and just relied on mobile land based launchers until Borei and Bulava were good to go. Russia will never have an opportunity like that- the US stuck in a quagmire that drains money towards counterinsurgency, simultaneous with a commodity boom - ever again.

In case you missed that, 2008-2011 was Medvedev time, not Putin's. Medvedev who did perform pretty major changes in the military and started move away from conscription to contract work - especially as various deficiencies became apparent after August 2008 Georgian war.

All you have written makes no point against what i wrote though - that we still remain at relative nuclear parity for MAD scenarios.

[Skroe]

Had major reliability issues.

Just like F-35 still has major reliability issues.

Bulava still has major reliability issues.

The F-35 is largely in perfect shape with the Block 3F software update.

Software has been the majority of the F-35s technical issues.

Or perhaps Russia just doesn't focus on submarines because we're perfectly content with mobile ground-based launchers.

No. Russia most definitely has been focusing on submarines. Russia's mobile ground launchers are, to use a basketball term, a lay-up for Russians. They're cheap. They're not very reliable. But Russia builds them, keeps them for 10 years, junks them, then replaces them. They don't build them to last, so they get away with it. They don't need them to last.

Subs though, are intrinsically made to last, and an at sea deterrent is still a far better deterrence platform than mobile launchers. Remember: a US first strike on Russia would see US destroy almost all Russian mobile launchers. Of the hundreds of warheads on them, a few dozen would make it off the ground, well within the scope of our limited missile defense to greatly mitigate a Russian second strike.

Don't even try your usual alternative explanation nonsense on this one.

And undersea future is autonomous nuclear drones anyway, not submarines.

It looks like Putin's fictional superweapon of doom found one believer.

I suppose you also bought it when they bolted an Iskander to an aircraft and called it a "air launched hypersonic cruise missile".

Jesus fucking Christ on the cross.

In case you missed that, 2008-2011 was Medvedev time, not Putin's. Medvedev who did perform pretty major changes in the military and started move away from conscription to contract work - especially as various deficiencies became apparent after August 2008 Georgian war.

All you have written makes no point against what i wrote though - that we still remain at relative nuclear parity for MAD scenarios.

What I wrote is pointing out how Russian modernization exists in theory only. In practice, Russia updates it's mobile launcher and missiles because they're cheap and they aren't built to last, but is going to hold onto it's bombers, its bombs, its subs and its SLBMs forever, because it can't afford to truly replace them, nor is it willing to retire them due to the fact it would be unilaterally disarming.

[Skroe]

You have thousands of people who would personally profit from such wars.
And sadly they are in charge of the governments.

The US defense industry is utterly dwarfed by pretty much every other major US industry.

It's big in the world. It's a pipsqueak in the US economy. The US government spends 3.8% of GDP on defense.

US economy at whole:


Aerospace and Defense in the graph below is the green slice just above the darker green "3.3%" slice.


To put it in perspective, in 2018, Lockheed martin, the world's largest defense firm, made $5.88 billion in operating profit on $53.7 billion on sales. By contrast apple makes about $27 billion in profits per quarter on $85 billion in sales per quarter.

And the reasoning is pretty simple. Lockheed sells one hundred, $100 million F-35s per year. It'll make $10 billion, over 12 months. Apple sold 46.9 million iphones in just the 4th quarter of 2018, at an average cost of $900. That's $42 billion in sales... in one quarter.

Selling a lot of little things is much more profitable than selling a few big things. And that's why Apple is a blue whale and Lockheed is a minow. As much as anti-American figures like yourself would love to pretend the US is beholded to the military industrial complex, first, services rule here... secondly, consumer goods have made people far, far richer than the highly regulated defense industry ever has.

[Shalcker]

Bulava still has major reliability issues.

Last 5 launches went without any problems. Which reliability issues are you talking about really?

The F-35 is largely in perfect shape with the Block 3F software update.

Same for Bulava. They seemed to fix whatever production issues plagued it before.

No. Russia most definitely has been focusing on submarines. Russia's mobile ground launchers are, to use a basketball term, a lay-up for Russians. They're cheap. They're not very reliable. But Russia builds them, keeps them for 10 years, junks them, then replaces them. They don't build them to last, so they get away with it. They don't need them to last.

It's just off-road truck with big wheels that can lift rocket upright when needed. Why would it need to be built "to last"? It's not fixed launch silo.

It's entire point is that it can be anywhere at any given time, making taking them all out prohibitively expensive.

Subs though, are intrinsically made to last, and an at sea deterrent is still a far better deterrence platform than mobile launchers. Remember: a US first strike on Russia would see US destroy almost all Russian mobile launchers. Of the hundreds of warheads on them, a few dozen would make it off the ground, well within the scope of our limited missile defense to greatly mitigate a Russian second strike.

How exactly do you see all launchers destroyed if their position is obscured? You certainly can get their bases, but even that before they get to launch is a stretch.

After all, once order is given it just turns up and launches - that takes less then a minute. Solid boosters are great.

Current status, as far as i see
US - 1260 warheads on submarines (with just 14 Ohio launch platforms), plus 400 warheads on 400 silo-based ICBMs.

Russia - 1138 land warheads ( ~378 mobile ) , 768 submarine-launched.

Still looks like enough damage remaining to wipe most major US cities.

It looks like Putin's fictional superweapon of doom found one believer.

Well, you still believe in your "missile defence"... when did it ever work?

What I wrote is pointing out how Russian modernization exists in theory only. In practice, Russia updates it's mobile launcher and missiles because they're cheap and they aren't built to last, but is going to hold onto it's bombers, its bombs, its subs and its SLBMs forever, because it can't afford to truly replace them, nor is it willing to retire them due to the fact it would be unilaterally disarming.

Bulava is already replacement of Sineva, with entirely separate submarine to match it. First sub for Bulava's, Yuri Dolgorukiy was completed in 2008.

Status-6 Посейдон/Kanyon undersea drones are going to get separate submarines to hold them as well.

[segara82]

Before the usual suspects keep on jammering about who has the bigger (nuclear) stick:
Both of you have a miserable defense.
Even the latest tests of the US barely got over 60% interception ratio in optimum conditions. That ratio goes DOWN when the weather is not a clear cloudless day or the russians upgraded their decoys.

So congratulations, MAD is still in effect. Because even IF the US managed to down 60% of the incoming missiles the 40% that come through still ruin you. Same goes for the Russians where i could not even find an somewhat reliable report about their interceptor-rate. You'd both be dead.
Sadly you would take the rest of the world with you.

[Shalcker]

Before the usual suspects keep on jammering about who has the bigger (nuclear) stick:
Both of you have a miserable defense.
Even the latest tests of the US barely got over 60% interception ratio in optimum conditions. That ratio goes DOWN when the weather is not a clear cloudless day or the russians upgraded their decoys.

So congratulations, MAD is still in effect. Because even IF the US managed to down 60% of the incoming missiles the 40% that come through still ruin you. Same goes for the Russians where i could not even find an somewhat reliable report about their interceptor-rate. You'd both be dead.
Sadly you would take the rest of the world with you.

I think we only got interceptors for Moscow alone.

Newest missile for that complex, PRS-1M, was successfully tested in 2017. Obviously it is unlikely to be widely deployed yet, and it's characteristics are mostly kept secret.

[Wikko]

So what exactly does it matter what kind of nuclear weapons either side has? They're never going to be used. And if they are (any kind) we'll all be dead anyways. I dont see the huge problem with someone developing different kind of missiles when both sides have thousands of nuclear warheads already

[I Push Buttons]

So what exactly does it matter what kind of nuclear weapons either side has? They're never going to be used. And if they are (any kind) we'll all be dead anyways. I dont see the huge problem with someone developing different kind of missiles when both sides have thousands of nuclear warheads already

The fear that one side might develop such an advantage that they feel they can "win" a nuclear war and thus actually start one.

[Powerogue]

Not ideal. o_O

Oh I can understand ending a treaty neither side was really upholding anyway, but to then not work together to replace it with a better one is pretty scary.

I don't want to be part of the generation that lives through World War III.

Can't we just go to space again? Maybe race to see who can get a man on Mars?

[VanishingAct]

Well if this doesn't confirm collusion I just don't know what else does.
From hacking the US election, hacking arab migrants to rape western women and even hacking the mueller investigation! What can't these mighty Russians do???
edit: for a laugh I thought I'd see if there would be articles claiming that Russian hacking even caused more climate change and sure enough there was ahahahaha

[CostinR]

And this is the heart of the comprehensive failure of your argument.

You decry Western Europe for "throwing you under the bus." Trump, who has repeatedly talked about withdrawing from NATO, would do worse. He'd sell you to Vladimir Putin in exchange for an empty promise.

The Establishment politicians on both sides of the Atlantic you decry... the Atlanticists... they are what have held NATO together for 70 years. They are what is holding it together now, despite it being besieged by Trump who wants to leave, but can't.

If Russia were to attack Eastern Europe, it would be Trump's inclination to do nothing. The US Congress is very much in favor of NATO and would force a defense. But not Trump. Not the guy you've taken a liking to. He would ask the question "why should American boys die for Romanians?"

The Atanticists Establishment, people you decry, know why. Because as soon as Russia rolls over you, they'll roll over the Germans. Then the Italians. And then the French. And then American boys will die in Europe anyway liberating its people from their neighbors once again. The disrupter-in-chief you are friendly to sneers at that notion.

Make no mistake... under Donald Trump, NATO Article V exists only in theory. America First means we'll ditch you like a bad habit if we needed to. It would not be popular here, but Donald Trump isn't really President of the United States. He's President of the 35% of Americans, mostly rural and uneducated, who are so parochial and small minded to take every not-nice thing a European has ever said about America personally. He'll sell you to Putin, and then get on TV, hold a rally, and pretend it's some great thing.

Ah yes the Atlanticists, the great saviors and protectors of Eastern Europe, those standing in their ivory towers completely detached from the reality in either their countries or in Russia. The same people who eat up all those stories of Russian military incompetence and proclaim the west would win any confrontation.

The exact same people who firmly believed Russia would never invade Georgia...until Russia smashed the Georgian military and occupied Georgian soil. The same people who laughed at the idea of Putin doing anything in Ukraine...until Russia occupied Crimea and the War in Eastern Ukraine started. The same people who laughed at Russia doing anything competently in Syria.

How many times do we need to play this game exactly? How many times do those idiots need to be proven wrong? You talked about me fighting the last war with Iraq and Libya. The people fighting the last war are those that still think we're living in the end of history and it's 1992 and do not take Russia seriously.

You say Congress. What did Congress do when Georgia and Ukraine were savaged by Russia? Fuck all that stopped it. Oh right sanctions...nice job there, I'm sure that makes Crimea less under Russia control, and these were countries the US wanted to join NATO until it was blocked by France and Germany: Sarkozy and Merkel.

Congress has a big mouth with nothing to back it. They think they can cow Putin into submission like he's some second rate thug and Russia is insignificant. Russia is the 2nd most powerful military force on the planet. China is closing that gap but they've got years to go. You expect me to trust in people who you yourself decry for lacking the guts to even vote for military authorizations?!

When the US is willing to develop a serious strategy in relation to Russia, and not one dictated by those who still believe it's 1992 then we I might take it seriously.

If Russia invaded the Baltics, the first line of NATO, I expect that Western Europe and the US would do exactly the following to stop them:

Fuck all.

Because at the end of the way as you comment on Trump not wanting Americans to die for Eastern Europe so does much of Europe think about us. That has to change. Germany is the worst problem in here, because their economy is strong, they are running budget surpluses and they still refuse to increase defense spending to what it needs to be.

I don't give a single damn about how angry Merkel is with Trump for pushing her on the matter of defense spending or how much the ivory tower crowd decries Trump's tactics. I care about tanks and planes on the ground and for political leaders to stop pretending Russia is an irrelevancy.

Not ideal. o_O

Oh I can understand ending a treaty neither side was really upholding anyway, but to then not work together to replace it with a better one is pretty scary.

I don't want to be part of the generation that lives through World War III.

Can't we just go to space again? Maybe race to see who can get a man on Mars?

I don't think we will see World War III anytime soon unless someone does some very very stupid.

However we are the generation that will no longer see the realization of our hopes and dreams that were promised to us in 90s. We are the ones who will live in a world marred by geopolitical great power conflict, that might see the very end of the western rules based international order if China wins this battle with the United States. A battle that might very well continue for the rest of our lives.

In short? Make the best of what you have, find value where you can in life because things are going to get very ugly in the years ahead.

[Realitytrembles]

If Russia invaded the Baltics, the first line of NATO, I expect that Western Europe and the US would do exactly the following to stop them:

Fuck all.

I like a lot of what you say, but I'll have to disagree with you here.

The Baltic states are NATO members. If they are attacked, the US will defend them. It would be utter political suicide for any US president to not honor Article 5.

The Congress would likely declare war over such a president's objections.

[CostinR]

I like a lot of what you say, but I'll have to disagree with you here.

The Baltic states are NATO members. If they are attacked, the US will defend them. It would be utter political suicide for any US president to not honor Article 5.

The Congress would likely declare war over such a president's objections.

Congress has not declared war since World War 2. They've declared military authorizations but have even stopped doing that since the debacles with Iraq and Libya.

They couldn't even push through one against ISIS, I'm supposed to think they'd to because of Russia?

As for Article 5, while the public opinion is that Article 5 means an attack on a NATO member means that every NATO member will declare war and assist them with armed forces what Article 5 actually says as per the treaty is this:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."

Not quite precise eh? So sure if attacked you may use military force if deem it necessary, but it's not as clear cut as you might think. This is quite important for Eastern Europe, but it can be interpreted as NATO members staying out of war between the Baltics and Russia....which matters when you've got Erdogan in Turkey and Orban in Hungary.

I understand that many Americans will say that of course we'd fight a war to defend the Baltics if Russia attacked them, what I must stress us out here is that those of us in Eastern Europe, especially Poland and the Baltics who share a land border with Russia, DO NOT believe that the so called "1st World" would send their sons and daughters to die for us.

After all aren't we a bunch of slavs and gypsies, at least according to Western Europe.

[Crispin]

Your fears are understandable costinR, but I honestly have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. The sheer notion that the West would do nothing cus “lol its slavs” makes no sense, other than in your fears I guess, and some idea that everyone in the West hates eastern europeans.

Oddly enough, the actions of the West contradicts your nonsense.

1, eastern european countries were accepted into the EU and NATO. Contradicts your “they dont give a fuck”

2, western Europe got involved in both World wars, due to a non Slavic country attacking a slavic one.

But as I said, your fear is understandable, but there’s no reason to act as if it’s the truth.

Also comparing the actions of the Congress in regards to ISIS, and then conclude that they’ll be just as inactive in regards to a country that is very much an existential treath, makes no sense either.

[Najnaj]

The notion of a US - Russia cold war has got to be a Putin vanity project. Russia has 1/10th the defense spending that the US has and very shallow pockets to do anything about that. The US on the other hand could double it in a heartbeat.

If I was Putin with a failing economy and being declared an international pariah I would also want to world to think that the US is threatened by me...but of course it is not in any proportional way.

[segara82]

Your fears are understandable costinR, but I honestly have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. The sheer notion that the West would do nothing cus “lol its slavs” makes no sense, other than in your fears I guess, and some idea that everyone in the West hates eastern europeans.

Oddly enough, the actions of the West contradicts your nonsense.

1, eastern european countries were accepted into the EU and NATO. Contradicts your “they dont give a fuck”

2, western Europe got involved in both World wars, due to a non Slavic country attacking a slavic one.

But as I said, your fear is understandable, but there’s no reason to act as if it’s the truth.

Also comparing the actions of the Congress in regards to ISIS, and then conclude that they’ll be just as inactive in regards to a country that is very much an existential treath, makes no sense either.

1. Eastern European countries got accepted into the NATO because we did not want another treaty forming itself out of what was left of the Warsaw Pact, it was about keeping the upper hand. Not everybody thought it was a good idea:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

2. Back then the involved countries saw war as a legitimate and honourable way to deal with another. If you had asked people back then out on the streets if they should thrash the other side in bloody battles and such they would have agreed to it.
After the mess that WW2 left all over Europe, the threat of nuclear death and now nearly 3 decades of the big european peace project aka EU the majority of the populace is no longer thinking in that way.

[Crispin]

1, Which document specifies what you're saying? the resumé only touches on the misleading of Gorbachev.

2, How on earth can you argue "if you had asked people back then" ? I guess you must have asked people back then, since you somehow know what the answer would be. Accounts are that France and GB was very reluctant to enter a war after WW1, therefore the appeasement politics. Also need citation on the "legitimate and honourable way" claim, they did challenge Germany to a duel with the slap of a glove.

[CostinR]

The notion of a US - Russia cold war has got to be a Putin vanity project. Russia has 1/10th the defense spending that the US has and very shallow pockets to do anything about that. The US on the other hand could double it in a heartbeat.

If I was Putin with a failing economy and being declared an international pariah I would also want to world to think that the US is threatened by me...but of course it is not in any proportional way.

While Russia will be very much part of this new Cold War it's not going to be a US-Russia Cold War. It's a US-China Cold War.

Your fears are understandable costinR, but I honestly have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. The sheer notion that the West would do nothing cus “lol its slavs” makes no sense, other than in your fears I guess, and some idea that everyone in the West hates eastern europeans.

Oddly enough, the actions of the West contradicts your nonsense.

1, eastern european countries were accepted into the EU and NATO. Contradicts your “they dont give a fuck”

2, western Europe got involved in both World wars, due to a non Slavic country attacking a slavic one.

But as I said, your fear is understandable, but there’s no reason to act as if it’s the truth.

Also comparing the actions of the Congress in regards to ISIS, and then conclude that they’ll be just as inactive in regards to a country that is very much an existential treath, makes no sense either.

Western Europe accepted us into NATO when it easy and convenient for them to do so. When they didn't have to worry about a conflict with Russia because we still were in the '92 mindset and because it was a way to get us in line for membership of the European Union.

Since 2008 NATO and European Union expansion has effectively halted beyond the Balkans because it's no longer easy and convenient for say a country like Georgia or Ukraine or Moldova to join either NATO or the EU. They all want to but Western Europe effectively put an end to that. Heck Georgia's and Ukraine's membership plans were rejected at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Regarding WW2. Times were different since the world was still living in the shadow of World War I, especially France. I also think times were different during the Cold War when Germany ( and current Germany is still Cold War West Germany since they effectively absorbed East Germany into their government structure ) had troops deployed on the border facing off against Soviet Troops.

Nowadays? During the Cold War the notion of over 50% of Germany's gas imports coming from Russia would have been insane, with the percentage of how much gas Germany imports that is going to increase. The notion that France almost sold CARRIERS ( helicopter ones sure but still carriers ) to Russia before Crimea happened would have been insane.

France and Germany are also the countries that sold out both Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 and their plans to join NATO.

So no, I have no trust in Western Europe on the matter, especially not when the CDU and SPD are tethering on the brink of electoral disaster thanks to the AFD and Greens. When Italy is ruled by the far right and far left who are cutting defense spending and when in France....despite all the good Macron can do and is doing as the leader of Europe his approval rating is around 20%-30%.

Do I believe EU leaders would want to support Eastern Europe in a conflict with Russia? Perhaps. Do I believe the Western European public would do so? Not a chance.

Especially not when the Baltics would be conquered in less then a week.

[Najnaj]

While Russia will be very much part of this new Cold War it's not going to be a US-Russia Cold War. It's a US-China Cold War.



Western Europe accepted us into NATO when it easy and convenient for them to do so. When they didn't have to worry about a conflict with Russia because we still were in the '92 mindset and because it was a way to get us in line for membership of the European Union.

Since 2008 NATO and European Union expansion has effectively halted beyond the Balkans because it's no longer easy and convenient for say a country like Georgia or Ukraine or Moldova to join either NATO or the EU. They all want to but Western Europe effectively put an end to that. Heck Georgia's and Ukraine's membership plans were rejected at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

Regarding WW2. Times were different since the world was still living in the shadow of World War I, especially France. I also think times were different during the Cold War when Germany ( and current Germany is still Cold War West Germany since they effectively absorbed East Germany into their government structure ) had troops deployed on the border facing off against Soviet Troops.

Nowadays? During the Cold War the notion of over 50% of Germany's gas imports coming from Russia would have been insane, with the percentage of how much gas Germany imports that is going to increase. The notion that France almost sold CARRIERS ( helicopter ones sure but still carriers ) to Russia before Crimea happened would have been insane.

France and Germany are also the countries that sold out both Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 and their plans to join NATO.

So no, I have no trust in Western Europe on the matter, especially not when the CDU and SPD are tethering on the brink of electoral disaster thanks to the AFD and Greens. When Italy is ruled by the far right and far left who are cutting defense spending and when in France....despite all the good Macron can do and is doing as the leader of Europe his approval rating is around 20%-30%.

Do I believe EU leaders would want to support Eastern Europe in a conflict with Russia? Perhaps. Do I believe the Western European public would do so? Not a chance.

Especially not when the Baltics would be conquered in less then a week.

I think you have to excuse Germany and France for opposing in the midst of a world financial melt down. It was also Ukraine who stopped the membership process a couple of years later. I am sure there are details that I do not remember but these were a couple of big points.

I also think you you underestimate the general European public's hatred for Putin. It would be the leaders that would stop a direct intervention, not the public. There was a poll some time back (of which quality I do not know) put Putin as more hated than the leader of ISIS.