couldnt agree more, to me the EU's inaction is due to financial issues.
War or action against Russia would basically mean a massive world recession - Britain doesnt want to act because Russian companies are now listing in London to gain world acceptance and Germany (under Schroeder i believe?) has pipeline and diplomatic links with Russia that limits Merkel to words...
To me the best the EU/NATO could do here is commit itself to utterly cutting off Russian oil/gas within 20 years.
Well if FIFA had any balls they would take away the 2018 World Cup from Russia, particularly now since I'd imagine the number of tourists that would visit will be somewhere around 50,000 people (as opposed to the 1 million people who just went to Brazil). And with has happened, giving it to the Dutch seems like justice. But since Russia was chosen because of bribe money to begin with, I doubt anything happens. Now should all the top countries boycott Russia as host, that could make things interesting.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
couldnt agree more, to me the EU's inaction is due to financial issues.
War or action against Russia would basically mean a massive world recession - Britain doesnt want to act because Russian companies are now listing in London to gain world acceptance and Germany (under Schroeder i believe?) has pipeline and diplomatic links with Russia that limits Merkel to words...
To me the best the EU/NATO could do here is commit itself to utterly cutting off Russian oil/gas within 20 years.
If there is one thing that war is not known for causing, it is recession. Debt and loss of life? Yes. Recession? No.
If there is one thing that war is not known for causing, it is recession. Debt and loss of life? Yes. Recession? No.
Post war, morale, government cutbacks due to wasted money, etc. It's not the boon one thinks it might be. Additionally it's not the industrial catalyst it was in WWI and WW2.
Even if it was Peace > Marginal Economic stimulas for war (not that you were suggesting otherwise).
Additionally the opportunity cost of capital/resources including life.
Last edited by ranchlandsselling; 07-21-2014 at 01:59 PM.
I think the far more likely result of Russian aggression will be financial.
Both sides will suffer, but Russia should crack first. That will go a lot easier though if China is on board.
China would be a silent partner to Russia if War (Unlikely) did break out. I don't think that the rest of the World should count on jumping on the punish Russia band wagon unless we're willing to give major concessions.
Honestly, the best bet to hurt Putin's power base is to cut access to international banks. The rich Russians move their money out of Russia, if they can't and if Russian banks can't get access to credit, they'll break.
couldnt agree more, to me the EU's inaction is due to financial issues.
War or action against Russia would basically mean a massive world recession - Britain doesnt want to act because Russian companies are now listing in London to gain world acceptance and Germany (under Schroeder i believe?) has pipeline and diplomatic links with Russia that limits Merkel to words...
To me the best the EU/NATO could do here is commit itself to utterly cutting off Russian oil/gas within 20 years.
Just from a military standpoint a expanded war against Russia would be far more devastating then WW2 by a huge factor.
Trade would come to a virtual standstill as Russia's first move would be to cut the sea lanes. Europe's industrial footprint would be devastated.
Chances are it would be the first war in a while where America would take hits on their own mainland as Russia would basically have to Pearl Harbor America's capability to make war in the Atlantic and resupply over the ocean.
Modern weapons in theory have the capability to be more selective, but all that means is you need less to do more devastation then the carpet bombing campaigns of the second World War.
You would have a massive refugee problem, probably some level of mass starvation, you would probably see millions upon millions of casualties and once again that younger generation would be devastated.
A open war against Russia would be Armageddon even without the use of nuclear weapons.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Just from a military standpoint a expanded war against Russia would be far more devastating then WW2 by a huge factor.
Trade would come to a virtual standstill as Russia's first move would be to cut the sea lanes. Europe's industrial footprint would be devastated.
Chances are it would be the first war in a while where America would take hits on their own mainland as Russia would basically have to Pearl Harbor America's capability to make war in the Atlantic and resupply over the ocean.
Modern weapons in theory have the capability to be more selective, but all that means is you need less to do more devastation then the carpet bombing campaigns of the second World War.
You would have a massive refugee problem, probably some level of mass starvation, you would probably see millions upon millions of casualties and once again that younger generation would be devastated.
A open war against Russia would be Armageddon even without the use of nuclear weapons.
Okay. I've always thought green text is the stupidest thing in the world, but it's obvious that it's necessary (considering 3 other people thanked your totally captain obvious post).
For the record, THIS post is serious - due to the lack of green text.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Okay. I've always thought green text is the stupidest thing in the world, but it's obvious that it's necessary (considering 3 other people thanked your totally captain obvious post).
For the record, THIS post is serious - due to the lack of green text.
Okay. I've always thought green text is the stupidest thing in the world, but it's obvious that it's necessary (considering 3 other people thanked your totally captain obvious post).
For the record, THIS post is serious - due to the lack of green text.
We all sensed the sarcasm, at least I did. I thanked it because it shows why Russia can't say so
CNN just showed a list of some essential known facts:
-Satellites show SAM fired in that area
-Mid air explosion heat signatures consistent with a SAM hitting target where the plane went down
-No known Ukrainian BUK in that rebel territory or even close
-two weeks prior, satellites show 165 military vehicles come across border from Russia. Many tarped vehicles could have been BUK systems.
-SAM training site identified literally right across border where Rebels are known to be trained
That's pretty damning
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 07-21-2014 at 03:50 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Okay. I've always thought green text is the stupidest thing in the world, but it's obvious that it's necessary (considering 3 other people thanked your totally captain obvious post).
For the record, THIS post is serious - due to the lack of green text.
They might have been thanking the use of the image which was interesting regardless of the post it quoted (which I assumed was a joke).
