Threat to whom?

Orchestrating a coup is a much cheaper way to install a puppet govt than an invasion. After the coup, before the Russians started to mix in, the NATO flag was waiting to happen over the whole Ukraine.

Right, of course… :rolleyes:

I guess it is a good thing Russia was there to ride to the rescue huh? Without Russia who would protect Europe from NATO?

Typical western double speak in this whole post.

According to this guy, Russia is collapsing and about to take over Europe all at the same time.

Take over Europe? Not a chance… but that doesn’t mean Russia isn’t a threat at all. So is North Korea for that matter.

If Russia was as weak as you think it is, why is NATO amassing so much military assets near Russia ? And breaking international law in the process ?
NATO is now in full contravention NATO Russia Founding Act of 1997. The NATO Russian Founding Act | https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_05/jm

…and what part of that do you think NATO is in contravention of?

On the contrary. It was the US who invaded Ukraine via coup and we can see that in the Nuland recording. Putin was happy to make the lease payments on Crimea as he did for the last 15 years until he was called out of his boxseat in Sochi to deal with the US coup and attempted takeover of Russia’s equivalent of San Diego.

Ah yes, NATO invaded Ukraine huh? Remind me which part of Ukraine does NATO’s flag fly over today? Need I remind you that “Russia’s equivalent of San Diego” was located in another sovereign state… making it less “Russia’s equivalent of San Diego” and more “Russia’s equivalent” of Clark AFB. (or Okinawa, or the Panama Canal, etc)

The only reason Crimea became part of Ukraine is because Khruschev traded it to the Ukrainian S.S.R. for politburo votes after Stalin died in 1953. He was trying to outmanuever Bulganin and Malenkov in the post-Stalin struggle for power in the Soviet government – and it bought him their votes for General Secretary of the Communist Party.

Are you saying that the US fully recognized the USSR’s annexation of Crimea from Russia in 1953 ?

:stupid:

You can question the judgement exercised with the transfer, but at the time Ukraine was a state in name only. Russia certainly didn’t object at the time, and I am -pretty- sure there weren’t any green men involved.

The US feels it can intervene is places like Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Libya..etc etc. These people think the US is just a bully. who is “just in that case?”

These people? Like the Croatia and Montenegro who have joined or are seeking to join NATO? :rolleyes:

I don’t know what they can do qualitatively or quantitatively, they can for sure, and beyond any reasonable doubt end us. All of us.

You know, some hunters seek glory and go deep in the forest, looking for a bear to kill. Sometimes they find the dragon.

Sure, if Russia wanted to pretty well end the world they could, which is depressing when you think about it, that a State with Russia’s problems is so paranoid that it feels it needs that capability… but Russia is no dragon, and nobody is hunting Russia regardless.

Interesting.
So how will NATO stop Russia from deploying their S400/500 regiments on Russian borders..?

Russia can certainly put them there, what you would expect would be for NATO to ensure they have the means to eliminate or disable those systems should it prove necessary. One would expect that to be a combination of EW, standoff weapons, and aircraft like the F-35.

Isn’t US with their AEGIS DD snoping around in Blacksea, and Baltic sea hypocritical in their behavior and statements..

It is normal for the US (and others) to sail in international waters. This ensures freedom of navigation and allows the US to show its presence. (one might note that both the Baltic and Black Seas are bordered by US allies…)

Now imagine how Russia would feel should the US establish a continuous presence in one of these areas, or if it were to build land based systems of similar capability that could deny Russian airspace for 150+ miles into Russia’s territory.

In my mind, Russias respond here. For every action there is an Reaction.

Of course you would believe that. No doubt you also believe it was Russian “volunteers” or soldiers on leave who fought that war in Ukraine… and that the “green men” who arrived on Russian transports were local freedom fighters.

And stop bringing up Krema and Ukraine pls. US was red handed spanked interfering in Kiev by FSB/Russia. Putin knew right away what was going down, thus he reacted.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Looks like you garbled it up. I take it you think hundreds of thousands of protesters in Kiev, protesting continuously for months, through the winter no less, were all somehow American agents? Please…

US will just have to learn this the hard way. Russia will never go away.
They will never go Broke, and they will never sucumb to US.
If you read about the history and culture of Russia, you will understand why.

Russia has “gone away” to no small extent already. It wasn’t long ago that the Russian empire’s borders stopped at Iran, and West Germany, and Afghanistan. Then Russia actually did go broke… and a swath of territory that by itself constituted one of the greatest empires in history achieved some measure of autonomy. Russia has bounced back from its nadir in the 90s, but hasn’t fundamentally reformed itself. It is basically a petro state with a side business of arms exports. Russia’s manufacturing and high tech sectors are barely a blip compared to even relatively small Western European states.

No, Russia isn’t going away, but it would be nice if one day it found a way to develop into something more.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you may be biased? -not try to insult here. I am genuinely asking this. Have you considered the possibility that all NATO bred people may be biased?

Everyone is “biased” to one extent or another but in general people raised in free societies with more or less free media have a vastly less biased worldview than those raised immersed in state propaganda. (witness KGB and JSR for what that can result in)

The very thing you are saying is absurd. “will not be allowed to create no-go zones for NATO air operations”! What is NATO ? the bearer of God’s will? The incarnation of Archangel Michael? The representative of God on earth?

NATO is the world’s most powerful military alliance… and they won’t allow their airspace to be subject to the whims of a Russian dictator with a penchant for invading his neighbors. Russia is resurgent as a military power, but in all other senses is a fading shadow of its Cold War height. We are talking about a state with a hydrocarbon-export based economy, the sum total of which is smaller than that of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the UK, Canada and of course the US… alone.

Think about that for a moment and consider the implications. There are 7 NATO states with economies larger than Russia’s. (the US alone has an economy 16x as large)

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

NATO has its issues without a doubt, but if pressed it has a latent capacity vastly greater than Russia can muster.

Russia has as much right to create no-go zones as NATO has. There is no functional difference between the two and historically I think USA (sometimes dragging NATO with it) has intervened in foreign affairs far more than Russia.

Everyone has made some significant blunders on the foreign stage, certainly that includes the US. With that said you won’t find anyone in NATO invading their neighbors in order to carve out little demi-states or in order to annex territory outright.

I think we should take it a step further us NATO members, let’s outright demand that Russia is NOT allowed to create any weapons whatsoever, not use them, not make them, not think about them.. .because they used to be communists and communism is bad! There .. fixed the whole issue outright.

Nobody is saying Russia has no right to develop or purchase weapons. Certainly one can question the wisdom of a poor state pouring so much of its resources into weapons… but they have the right.

Where things become dicey is when Russia seems to have it in mind to try to intimidate its neighbors by challenging their borders, establishing air defense systems that range well into their territory, etc. All that will achieve is to drive NATO to increase its own capabilities, and given economic and technological realities, NATO will inevitably overmatch Russia.

F-16 is better bang for buck over f-18, f-14 was a maintenance hog compared to F-15,
f-111 was as much of a fighter as f-35

Try to confine your trolling to just a few threads ok?

Find me some accounts of F-111 pilots beating up the fighters of their day in dogfights…

USAF and USN rivalry are famous or infamous in that they demand their own planes. sometimes the performance overlaps. if the US government forced both to adopt one type, which would’ve been best choice now that we know their capabilities?

1. F-16 or F-18
background: YF-17 was offered to the USAF and lost to the YF-16. Also an F-16 Naval version was offered (build?) for the US Navy

2. F-14 or F-15
background: McDonalds blueprint of the F-15N emerged , carrying 4 phoenix missiles and a double wheel landing gear.

3. F-111 or F-14
background: originally, the F-111 navalized fighter version was offered to the Navy

If they had to pick one type it would have to be the navy type in every case. Otherwise no carrier capability.

EOT

Boeing Unveils T-X Advanced Trainer Aircraft

Assembly without tools?