Let's Invade Russia!

[SLD]

The US has caused havoc around the world with its attempts at regime change. The Russians should not be underestimated, where an attempt to invade it would potentially be a disaster in the face of the use of Nuclear weapons which can be launched within a very few minutes.

Fair enough. We shouldn't invade Russia merely for regime change. But what if they blatantly and deliberately invaded the Baltic states, our NATO allies? Do we just push them out and stop there? Do nothing at all?

SLD

 

[Sarpedon]

Given that the Russians have been following Peter the Great's seaport strategy for the past 400 years or so, I would suggest that instead of invading Russia, we reverse the Peter strategy by capturing or blockading their seaports, and with airstrikes destroy their main points of land entry, and leave the mass to rot.

Moot point of course, any direct conflict with Russia would likely go nuclear, leading to the extinction of human life.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Given that the Russians have been following Peter the Great's seaport strategy for the past 400 years or so, I would suggest that instead of invading Russia, we reverse the Peter strategy by capturing or blockading their seaports, and with airstrikes destroy their main points of land entry, and leave the mass to rot.

Moot point of course, any direct conflict with Russia would likely go nuclear, leading to the extinction of human life.

Capturing a seaport is effectively an invasion. Blockading it would be seen as an act of aggression that is tantamount to war.

There again Russia has been flashing its new missile systems

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-inf-cruise-missile-us-no-defense-offense-2017-4

The US can't defend against Russia's newest cruise missiles — so it may have to try offense instead.


This could lead to a new arms race. The US and Europe should stop posturing and seek a proper coexistence with Russia on equal terms. I believe the Russians will respond well to this.

 

[Sarpedon]

Duh. Everything we've been discussing in this thread would mean war. Go back to trolling politics, Putin mercenary.

 

[LordKiran]

Given that the Russians have been following Peter the Great's seaport strategy for the past 400 years or so, I would suggest that instead of invading Russia, we reverse the Peter strategy by capturing or blockading their seaports, and with airstrikes destroy their main points of land entry, and leave the mass to rot.

Moot point of course, any direct conflict with Russia would likely go nuclear, leading to the extinction of human life.

Capturing a seaport is effectively an invasion. Blockading it would be seen as an act of aggression that is tantamount to war.

There again Russia has been flashing its new missile systems

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-inf-cruise-missile-us-no-defense-offense-2017-4

The US can't defend against Russia's newest cruise missiles — so it may have to try offense instead.


This could lead to a new arms race. The US and Europe should stop posturing and seek a proper coexistence with Russia on equal terms. I believe the Russians will respond well to this.

Sure they would! Just after they finish taking back the lost territories of the Russian empire...

 

[LordKiran]

Thinking about it now, why invade Russia at all? There are cheaper ways to diminish your major rivals than invasion.

How about as a hypothetical we ramp up natural gas production as high as we can and then trade it to the EU and other parts at a loss. Sure it'd cost us money but it'd be cheaper than the alternatives and would likely have the desired effect of weakening the Russian state by causing their economy to shrink dramatically.

 

[SLD]

Thinking about it now, why invade Russia at all? There are cheaper ways to diminish your major rivals than invasion.

How about as a hypothetical we ramp up natural gas production as high as we can and then trade it to the EU and other parts at a loss. Sure it'd cost us money but it'd be cheaper than the alternatives and would likely have the desired effect of weakening the Russian state by causing their economy to shrink dramatically.

because der drumpf has ordered you to defeat them in battle and rise victorious finally over a defeated Russia. Besides, we need their land and to turn them into serfs again.

So how do you go about it? I say you use the Baltic states as your primary base, plus Ukraine. You strike on converging lines towards Moscow instead of diverging lines. Navy carriers strike from both North and West, I.e. Towards the Kola Peninsula and Vladivostok. Perhaps use Marines to take the Kola Peninsula, and thus deny them their Navy base. That forces Russia to a three to four front strategy.

SLD

 

[barbos]

The US has caused havoc around the world with its attempts at regime change. The Russians should not be underestimated, where an attempt to invade it would potentially be a disaster in the face of the use of Nuclear weapons which can be launched within a very few minutes.

Fair enough. We shouldn't invade Russia merely for regime change. But what if they blatantly and deliberately invaded the Baltic states, our NATO allies? Do we just push them out and stop there? Do nothing at all?

SLD

What if NATO blatantly and deliberately invades Russia?

 

[Sarpedon]

How would that happen?

The nice thing about NATO is the decision making tends to be fragmented except for when triggered by an outside force.

It is a defensive pact, not an offensive one. For "NATO" to decide to attack Russia, every NATO nation would have to agree. It is implausible, and would happen only in the case of a blatant move by that other party.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Fair enough. We shouldn't invade Russia merely for regime change. But what if they blatantly and deliberately invaded the Baltic states, our NATO allies? Do we just push them out and stop there? Do nothing at all?

SLD

What if NATO blatantly and deliberately invades Russia?

Is this really a valid concern in Russia?

 

[bilby]

What if NATO blatantly and deliberately invades Russia?

Is this really a valid concern in Russia?

Yes, of course it is. I am very worried by the number of people who cannot see that it must be - a large and heavily armed force whose primary declared purpose is to defend against YOU, and who has pointed large numbers of weapons at YOU in pursuit of that purpose is always going to be a major and valid cause for concern. Even the weakest strategists have heard the phrase 'attack is the best form of defence'.

And that cuts both ways. If Russia feels threatened by NATO - and it would be very strange if they did NOT - then that might lead the Russians to decide that their best strategy is to attack NATO; Not due to any particular animosity, or in retaliation to any particular incident, but as a defensive move.

It is therefore of vital importance that NATO makes it very clear, by word and (more importantly) deed, that invading Russia is not something they intend to do. Because assuming that the Russians agree that such an idea is ridiculous, just because it looks ridiculous from the perspective of NATO HQ in Brussels, would be massively dangerous.

If NATO were planning to invade Russia, then they would obviously have a lot to gain by claiming and trying to pretend that such an idea is crazy and impossible. So the mere appearance that NATO thinks it is crazy and impossible is no comfort at all to Russia or Russians.

 

[J842P]

The US has caused havoc around the world with its attempts at regime change. The Russians should not be underestimated, where an attempt to invade it would potentially be a disaster in the face of the use of Nuclear weapons which can be launched within a very few minutes.

Fair enough. We shouldn't invade Russia merely for regime change. But what if they blatantly and deliberately invaded the Baltic states, our NATO allies? Do we just push them out and stop there? Do nothing at all?

SLD

The Baltic states should have never been let in to NATO in the first place.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Is this really a valid concern in Russia?

Yes, of course it is. I am very worried by the number of people who cannot see that it must be - a large and heavily armed force whose primary declared purpose is to defend against YOU, and who has pointed large numbers of weapons at YOU in pursuit of that purpose is always going to be a major and valid cause for concern. Even the weakest strategists have heard the phrase 'attack is the best form of defence'.

And that cuts both ways. If Russia feels threatened by NATO - and it would be very strange if they did NOT - then that might lead the Russians to decide that their best strategy is to attack NATO; Not due to any particular animosity, or in retaliation to any particular incident, but as a defensive move.

It is therefore of vital importance that NATO makes it very clear, by word and (more importantly) deed, that invading Russia is not something they intend to do. Because assuming that the Russians agree that such an idea is ridiculous, just because it looks ridiculous from the perspective of NATO HQ in Brussels, would be massively dangerous.

If NATO were planning to invade Russia, then they would obviously have a lot to gain by claiming and trying to pretend that such an idea is crazy and impossible. So the mere appearance that NATO thinks it is crazy and impossible is no comfort at all to Russia or Russians.

There's like 8,000 Nato troops in Eastern front. And what would the west gain by invading Russia?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Fair enough. We shouldn't invade Russia merely for regime change. But what if they blatantly and deliberately invaded the Baltic states, our NATO allies? Do we just push them out and stop there? Do nothing at all?

SLD

The Baltic states should have never been let in to NATO in the first place.

Yea, it probably wasn't a great idea to expand in the eastern bloc. Probably wasn't great idea to scare the Russians so much. However, it's probably a good idea to have enough troops there (thousand or two?) to make it too painful for the Russians to invade. A good defense might prevent WW3. The Russians do have a habit of invading countries that lack Nato troops or nukes....

 

[barbos]

How would that happen?

The nice thing about NATO is the decision making tends to be fragmented except for when triggered by an outside force.

It is a defensive pact, not an offensive one. For "NATO" to decide to attack Russia, every NATO nation would have to agree. It is implausible, and would happen only in the case of a blatant move by that other party.

Most invasions are defensive. How that could happen? The same way Iraq invasion happened. Colin Powell will show the convincing "evidence" to NATO members and they will follow US lead.

 

[bilby]

Yes, of course it is. I am very worried by the number of people who cannot see that it must be - a large and heavily armed force whose primary declared purpose is to defend against YOU, and who has pointed large numbers of weapons at YOU in pursuit of that purpose is always going to be a major and valid cause for concern. Even the weakest strategists have heard the phrase 'attack is the best form of defence'.

And that cuts both ways. If Russia feels threatened by NATO - and it would be very strange if they did NOT - then that might lead the Russians to decide that their best strategy is to attack NATO; Not due to any particular animosity, or in retaliation to any particular incident, but as a defensive move.

It is therefore of vital importance that NATO makes it very clear, by word and (more importantly) deed, that invading Russia is not something they intend to do. Because assuming that the Russians agree that such an idea is ridiculous, just because it looks ridiculous from the perspective of NATO HQ in Brussels, would be massively dangerous.

If NATO were planning to invade Russia, then they would obviously have a lot to gain by claiming and trying to pretend that such an idea is crazy and impossible. So the mere appearance that NATO thinks it is crazy and impossible is no comfort at all to Russia or Russians.

There's like 8,000 Nato troops in Eastern front. And what would the west gain by invading Russia?

I am not saying that I think NATO might invade Russia. I don't think they might.

I am saying that I can understand why the Russians might not see things the same way that you or I do.

How do you know that there are only 8,000 NATO troops on the eastern front? If you were in charge of Russian defensive forces, would you make your plans based on what NATO say they are doing, and on what they allow you to see them doing; Or would you assume that they might be lying and/or concealing some forces, and rely only on your own country's intelligence estimates of their maximum plausibly achievable strength?

I know that I would start from the latter assumption, if only to cover my backside.

As to what the west gains from a successful invasion, basically the same things invaders have gained for centuries - including at the very least, the removal of a rival power and its replacement with a friendly one, with a concomitant reduction in the threat of an invasion of the west by the Russians. Maybe some cheap resources. Perhaps it would also send a message to other powers - such as China - not to mess with NATO. The list of things that NATO leaders might imagine they could gain is extensive, whether or not such imaginings seem reasonable to you or me.

 

[barbos]

What if NATO blatantly and deliberately invades Russia?

Is this really a valid concern in Russia?

Not an immediate concern, but in a long run yes. Once Russia is weak enough I don't see anything preventing NATO from invasion.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I am saying that I can understand why the Russians might not see things the same way that you or I do.

How do you know that there are only 8,000 NATO troops on the eastern front? If you were in charge of Russian defensive forces, would you make your plans based on what NATO say they are doing, and on what they allow you to see them doing; Or would you assume that they might be lying and/or concealing some forces, and rely only on your own country's intelligence estimates of their maximum plausibly achievable strength?

I know that I would start from the latter assumption, if only to cover my backside.

As to what the west gains from a successful invasion, basically the same things invaders have gained for centuries - including at the very least, the removal of a rival power and its replacement with a friendly one, with a concomitant reduction in the threat of an invasion of the west by the Russians. Maybe some cheap resources. Perhaps it would also send a message to other powers - such as China - not to mess with NATO. The list of things that NATO leaders might imagine they could gain is extensive, whether or not such imaginings seem reasonable to you or me.

If your intelligence is so poor you can't tell 8k from 80 or 800k, you deserve to be invaded.

The Russians think about NATO invading them because that's what they would do. A military alliance of all Europe and you don't use it against the biggest threat? What's the point?

I don't see Russia being invaded so much as being pushed further east by eastern Europeans who have old scores to settle. Good luck getting NATO to do that. And even if you did, how can such a thing happen without Germany being a big winner and who wants that?

I'm no geostrategist, but offhand, I'd say a weaker Russia is good for Europe. Who's going to take their place? Iran? China?

 

[barbos]

I am saying that I can understand why the Russians might not see things the same way that you or I do.

How do you know that there are only 8,000 NATO troops on the eastern front? If you were in charge of Russian defensive forces, would you make your plans based on what NATO say they are doing, and on what they allow you to see them doing; Or would you assume that they might be lying and/or concealing some forces, and rely only on your own country's intelligence estimates of their maximum plausibly achievable strength?

I know that I would start from the latter assumption, if only to cover my backside.

As to what the west gains from a successful invasion, basically the same things invaders have gained for centuries - including at the very least, the removal of a rival power and its replacement with a friendly one, with a concomitant reduction in the threat of an invasion of the west by the Russians. Maybe some cheap resources. Perhaps it would also send a message to other powers - such as China - not to mess with NATO. The list of things that NATO leaders might imagine they could gain is extensive, whether or not such imaginings seem reasonable to you or me.

If your intelligence is so poor you can't tell 8k from 80 or 800k, you deserve to be invaded.

Well, NATO recently went apeshit over few thousands of russian troops training in Belarus.

The Russians think about NATO invading them because that's what they would do.

And NATO thinks about russian invading them because that's what they would do.

A military alliance of all Europe and you don't use it against the biggest threat? What's the point?

You are correct, NATO should be disbanded, it serves no purpose other than harassing Russia.

I don't see Russia being invaded so much as being pushed further east by eastern Europeans who have old scores to settle. Good luck getting NATO to do that. And even if you did, how can such a thing happen without Germany being a big winner and who wants that?

I'm no geostrategist, but offhand, I'd say a weaker Russia is good for Europe.

You don't see how russians could have a problem with that?

Who's going to take their place? Iran? China?

China will take Russia's place regardless.

 

[bigfield]

The Russians think about NATO invading them because that's what they would do. A military alliance of all Europe and you don't use it against the biggest threat? What's the point?

I was under the impression that Russian diplomacy was based on Realpolitik: they don't care if NATO doesn't have a good reason to invade--they only care that NATO has the means to readily destroy Russia.