Let's Invade Russia!

[LordKiran]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

The historical context is that from 1807 to 1917 Finland was a Russian province. Taken from the Swedes. Since Stalin was a nationalist, he wanted it back. Completely ignoring that Finland had belonged to Sweden for close to a thousand years prior.

That's a problem in Europe. Everybody has a historical claim to everything else. And ethnic borders are fluid. There's just no point "giving back" land. It's better just to freeze borders and do our damndest to prevent nationalists from grabbing land from others.

I understand the historical context. I further understand that the people we now call Fins didn't necessarily see themselves as one people prior to Swedish conquest. All I am saying is that at the end of the day Stalin was warmongering when he declared war on the fins and violated their sovereignty. All I am arguing against are the flimsy justifications for Stalin's decisions. Nothing more.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

The historical context is that from 1807 to 1917 Finland was a Russian province. Taken from the Swedes. Since Stalin was a nationalist, he wanted it back. Completely ignoring that Finland had belonged to Sweden for close to a thousand years prior.

That's a problem in Europe. Everybody has a historical claim to everything else. And ethnic borders are fluid. There's just no point "giving back" land. It's better just to freeze borders and do our damndest to prevent nationalists from grabbing land from others.

Here is a problem in Europe and you are an excellent illustration of it. Problem is, you don't listen. You were just told about context and reasons of these historical events, yet you continue with your retarded propaganda like nothing happened, it just went through your brain without inducing any kind of effect.

I'm listening. I'm just not buying it. I think you're just talking shit. You also seem incapable of producing the merest support for any of your arguments. So far your arguments for why the Crimea should belong to Russia have not been impressive. The fact that you think an obviously manipulated and bogus referendum was legit, does NOT add to your credibility.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I understand the historical context. I further understand that the people we now call Fins didn't necessarily see themselves as one people prior to Swedish conquest. All I am saying is that at the end of the day Stalin was warmongering when he declared war on the fins and violated their sovereignty. All I am arguing against are the flimsy justifications for Stalin's decisions. Nothing more.

There was no Swedish conquest. When nations started forming in Europe Sweden emerged attached to Finland, right from the start. It's also very hard to draw political maps of Viking Scandinavia, since every little village elected their kings. Whenever a king died, pretenders had to travel around and try to convince the various jarls that he should take over. All of Scandinavia could be united under one king, and then we'd have a period with several kings, and then back to union again. There were a couple of ethnic identities for the Vikings, you could be Dane, Svea, Jute, Dala, Jæmts, and Helsings. The Finns weren't part of this. They were inland tribes in what today is Finland. But all the coasts and southern Finland were Svea. What later became the Swedish identity. They still all speak Swedish over there, and they primarily identify as Swedes. Not Finns. And certainly not Russians. Sweden certainly still have a claim to Finland. But we will of course not pursue it. And nationalistically, there's zero conflict between Finland and Sweden. For Swedish nationalists Finland is as much part of Sweden as Sweden itself. They see defending Finland is defending Sweden. Which is why Swedish volunteers flooded into Finland during the war with Russia in WW2. The fact that Finland has self rule is a non factor here.

I think the Norwegian and Icelandic vikings typically identified as Danes.

 

[barbos]

So just to be clear, it is wrong to suggest that the fins 'sided' with the nazis in the sense that they were sworn allies, rather than their goals just happening to coincide with one another?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify on Finland's involvement in the Nazi war effort?

How is that relevant?

To the main topic? Not at all. With regards to my personal tangential dispute with Barbos? He keeps looking for reasons to justify Stalin's violation of Finnish Sovereignty.

Yes, and the justification is because the Nazis were going to use it as a way to invade. If Finland would not have let Hitler do it, then Hitler would have simply taken it by force, as he did with the Netherlands and Belgium. You may not like it, but calling it "warmongering" is leaving out a very important piece of historical context.

I would call it justified.

I wouldn't because you'll notice Stalin didn't give them their territory back after the fact. Isn't it funny how Russian borders grew by "Protecting themselves" Right...

All of this is just using so many words to once again reiterate "Stalin secured the interests of his people at the expense of others." And in that regard he is little different from any fascistic dictator you care to mention.

The historical context is that from 1807 to 1917 Finland was a Russian province. Taken from the Swedes. Since Stalin was a nationalist, he wanted it back. Completely ignoring that Finland had belonged to Sweden for close to a thousand years prior.

That's a problem in Europe. Everybody has a historical claim to everything else. And ethnic borders are fluid. There's just no point "giving back" land. It's better just to freeze borders and do our damndest to prevent nationalists from grabbing land from others.

Here is a problem in Europe and you are an excellent illustration of it. Problem is, you don't listen. You were just told about context and reasons of these historical events, yet you continue with your retarded propaganda like nothing happened, it just went through your brain without inducing any kind of effect.

I'm listening. I'm just not buying it. I think you're just talking shit. You also seem incapable of producing the merest support for any of your arguments. So far your arguments for why the Crimea should belong to Russia have not been impressive. The fact that you think an obviously manipulated and bogus referendum was legit, does NOT add to your credibility.

Right, I and my buddy and former US ambassador to Russia Matlock are talking shit. And the guy who suggested starting a nuclear War with Russia over Crimea is a a genius. What are you smoking if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Elixir]

Invasions suck, and big ones suck bigly,
All my life, I've wished that Russia wasn't so anti-USA and vice versa. Don't know what it would take for a real relationship to develop (something beyond mere détente), but I know the first step would be to get rid of both Cheato and his puppet-master.

 

[barbos]

Invasions suck, and big ones suck bigly,
All my life, I've wished that Russia wasn't so anti-USA and vice versa. Don't know what it would take for a real relationship to develop (something beyond mere détente), but I know the first step would be to get rid of both Cheato and his puppet-master.

I think getting rid of Putin is not necessary. I mean I can see how it could temporarily help, but the root cause are US neocons and military-industrial complex. As for Trump, he is irrelevant.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Invasions suck, and big ones suck bigly,
All my life, I've wished that Russia wasn't so anti-USA and vice versa. Don't know what it would take for a real relationship to develop (something beyond mere détente), but I know the first step would be to get rid of both Cheato and his puppet-master.

I think getting rid of Putin is not necessary. I mean I can see how it could temporarily help, but the root cause are US neocons and military-industrial complex. As for Trump, he is irrelevant.

Buddy: I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that you'd put all the blame on the US! When did you lose your impartiality??

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It would be an over extension of the US. The US is already crumbling from within, and this would just speed that along. The US is basically Rome in its latter years, still pushing its weight around and invading and interfering in foreign lands while its Emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

 

[LordKiran]

It would be an over extension of the US. The US is already crumbling from within, and this would just speed that along. The US is basically Rome in its latter years, still pushing its weight around and invading and interfering in foreign lands while its Emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

Crumbling from within huh? You would be surprised just how quickly fortunes can reverse. France came out of a rebellion to win its war against a European coalition.

 

[SLD]

It would be an over extension of the US. The US is already crumbling from within, and this would just speed that along. The US is basically Rome in its latter years, still pushing its weight around and invading and interfering in foreign lands while its Emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

Crumbling from within huh? You would be surprised just how quickly fortunes can reverse. France came out of a rebellion to win its war against a European coalition.

Yeah. Comparing the US to Ancient Rome is historical claptrap. The so called crumbling from within is another standard trope you hear thrown out. Rome didn't collapse from within. It had internal problems no doubt, but it's collapse came from a foreign invasion. Several actually.

That's not to say invading Russia wouldn't be an overstretch. It would be extremely difficult no doubt. But we often mistake history for inevitability. The question posed here is not whether we should or shouldn't (that's for the political discussions forum) but if the US and its allies finds itself in such a war, how should it be conducted - given the history of foreign invasions of Russia.

SLD

 

[LordKiran]

It would be an over extension of the US. The US is already crumbling from within, and this would just speed that along. The US is basically Rome in its latter years, still pushing its weight around and invading and interfering in foreign lands while its Emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

Crumbling from within huh? You would be surprised just how quickly fortunes can reverse. France came out of a rebellion to win its war against a European coalition.

Yeah. Comparing the US to Ancient Rome is historical claptrap. The so called crumbling from within is another standard trope you hear thrown out. Rome didn't collapse from within. It had internal problems no doubt, but it's collapse came from a foreign invasion. Several actually.

That's not to say invading Russia wouldn't be an overstretch. It would be extremely difficult no doubt. But we often mistake history for inevitability. The question posed here is not whether we should or shouldn't (that's for the political discussions forum) but if the US and its allies finds itself in such a war, how should it be conducted - given the history of foreign invasions of Russia.

SLD

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

 

[barbos]

Crumbling from within huh? You would be surprised just how quickly fortunes can reverse. France came out of a rebellion to win its war against a European coalition.

Yeah. Comparing the US to Ancient Rome is historical claptrap. The so called crumbling from within is another standard trope you hear thrown out. Rome didn't collapse from within. It had internal problems no doubt, but it's collapse came from a foreign invasion. Several actually.

That's not to say invading Russia wouldn't be an overstretch. It would be extremely difficult no doubt. But we often mistake history for inevitability. The question posed here is not whether we should or shouldn't (that's for the political discussions forum) but if the US and its allies finds itself in such a war, how should it be conducted - given the history of foreign invasions of Russia.

SLD

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah. Comparing the US to Ancient Rome is historical claptrap. The so called crumbling from within is another standard trope you hear thrown out. Rome didn't collapse from within. It had internal problems no doubt, but it's collapse came from a foreign invasion. Several actually.

That's not to say invading Russia wouldn't be an overstretch. It would be extremely difficult no doubt. But we often mistake history for inevitability. The question posed here is not whether we should or shouldn't (that's for the political discussions forum) but if the US and its allies finds itself in such a war, how should it be conducted - given the history of foreign invasions of Russia.

SLD

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons? (I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.
Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.
Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?
It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.
Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?
And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

 

[LordKiran]

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons? (I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.
Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.
Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?
It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.
Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?
And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

The idea isn't to keep territory. the idea is to play the winter game and win through attrition.

The purpose of the invasion is solely to force the Russian Army to engage with you and bleed them of manpower, tactics used would reflect this goal.

Every effort used is for the sole purpose of destroying a rival by depriving them of civilization (Y'know, cities.) such that recovery would be long, slow, arduous, and difficult, and thats not even considering land concessions should we win, a break up of much of the empire by dividing it among our allies. Karelia, Kola, and Bjarmia to Finland, A released sovereign Mordvin state. The former lands of the turko-mongols still held within Russian borders are divided between Kazakhstan and Mongolia, Circassia is given to Georgia just because. Most of the usable Russian pacific coast is also given to Japan.

The rest will be broken up into either US or EU backed protectorates, the sole goal of which is to pit groups of remaining Russian populations against each other.

Again though, this is all assuming that you're a ruthless warhawk who cares nothing for innocents caught in the middle.

 

[barbos]

LordKiran, seriously, what's up with that mongol thing?

 

[LordKiran]

LordKiran, seriously, what's up with that mongol thing?

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

 

[barbos]

LordKiran, seriously, what's up with that mongol thing?

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

 

[LordKiran]

LordKiran, seriously, what's up with that mongol thing?

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

Not all claims are equal. The difference here though is that the EU is not our rival, Russia is and this is a thread about invading Russia.


Do try to stay on topic.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons? (I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.
Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.
Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?
It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.
Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?
And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

The idea isn't to keep territory. the idea is to play the winter game and win through attrition.

The purpose of the invasion is solely to force the Russian Army to engage with you and bleed them of manpower, tactics used would reflect this goal.

Every effort used is for the sole purpose of destroying a rival by depriving them of civilization (Y'know, cities.) such that recovery would be long, slow, arduous, and difficult, and thats not even considering land concessions should we win, a break up of much of the empire by dividing it among our allies. Karelia, Kola, and Bjarmia to Finland, A released sovereign Mordvin state. The former lands of the turko-mongols still held within Russian borders are divided between Kazakhstan and Mongolia, Circassia is given to Georgia just because. Most of the usable Russian pacific coast is also given to Japan.

The rest will be broken up into either US or EU backed protectorates, the sole goal of which is to pit groups of remaining Russian populations against each other.

Again though, this is all assuming that you're a ruthless warhawk who cares nothing for innocents caught in the middle.

My post was in reply to barbos' assessment that "this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.". While that might have been an assessment about the assessments of the Russian government, barbos seemed to consider that (see the context) a good reason to keep the nukes ready. I'm arguing it is not. Without nukes, that would still not happen. Let me list some of the problems:

1. Even if some people are ruthless war hawks or whatever, most others aren't. The US is not an absolute monarchy. There is a political cost to losing American soldiers. The losses in Iraq would pale in comparison. There is no way the President would get support for a campaign like that.
2. There is a massive cost in the destruction of the international legal framework that the US and the West generally support, and which bans land grabs. There is no way to make it look as if this is not a land grab and the targeting of civilians, and of course even in the UN Security Council, countries such as France or the UK (or, obviously, Russia) would vote against giving those Russian territories to other countries. Moreover, even the temporary members of the UNSC would vote against. They don't have veto power, but they can still win on a majority of votes.
3. The Japanese government also would not accept that. The Japanese public at large would oppose.
4. Russia's chemical and biological weapons would likely be used, some by Russian forces, and others would end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda and similar organizations.

And I'm leaving an even bigger factor for later: China. There is no way China would let Japan take the Russian Pacific coast, even if Japan tried. And there is no way that they would also go along with those protectorates, etc. Even if you leave all other factors aside, an all-out war with China would be inevitable. That would be in Chinese territory and surrounding areas, and that can be disastrous for the attackers. But even if they win, regardless of results that would tear apart the world's economy, including the US economy.

 

[J842P]

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

Not all claims are equal. The difference here though is that the EU is not our rival, Russia is and this is a thread about invading Russia.


Do try to stay on topic.

In what sense is Russia a "rival" and the EU is not?