Chronicles of war in Ukraine

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Domovoy, May 9, 2014.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No definitely Obama's, along with a long list of others things like world hunger and, and, and other things.
    But on a serious note.
    Would Russia have invaded if Ukraine still had buckets of sunshine on hand.
  2. Must admit I always thought it was Russia that invaded part of someone else's country and annexed it together with supporting indirectly and then directly an armed insurrection in the same country? Still, how very dare a country want to shake off the yolk of decades of occupation and oppression and have the temerity to look West rather than east. Shocking :rolleyes:
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Of course. Putin, his social media bots, and his directly financed sock puppets like Globalresearch have blamed whoever fitted any particular agenda that they wanted to push, be it anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-USA. Everyone but the real culprit, that is.
  4. Pro-Kremlin politicians warn Trump could unleash new arms race
    Looks like Russia may be concerned about the comments made by Trump in an interview to Reuters yesterday. Personally, I see it as the start of a bargaining position. He's unhappy with START. It was a bad deal for America. Russia is allegedly deploying stuff contrary to it. US says they're going to increase their nukes. New treaty (that will be ignored). Neither Russia or America can financially afford a new arms race albeit I believe America will want numerical parity with Russia on warheads:
  5. You may be right to say that neither can afford an arms race but the US is in a better place to fund it. Could this be Star Wars part II with the Russian spending vast amounts to keep up with what they think the US could have.
  6. Possibly, but I'm principally going by this posted on the Trump thread:
    Exclusive - Trump wants to make sure U.S. nuclear arsenal at 'top of the pack'
    If the US is already spending $1Tn to upgrade its kit, how much would it cost to increase that, even to just get another 200 warheads (and delivery systems) to bring numerical parity?

    That's not to say the Russian economy could sustain a nuke arms race, more whether the US economy can sustain its current projected spend let alone increase it?

    As you say, may be worth it just to watch what Putin does but for me it's an opening statement on a 'deal'
  7. Trump likes pissing contests and "my one is bigger than yours". With that many nucs 1 or 2 hundred more will make no difference to the outcome. They probably haven't explained MAD to him yet or he can't get his head round it.

    Are there figures on how big these nucs are. I was under the impression (which is probably wrong) that Russia had higher yield weapons to compensate for inaccuracies adn the US was could put one in a pickle barrel so needed smaller yield to achieve the same job. How many of these weapons are tactical as opposed to strategic.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. How the US's nuclear weapons compare to Russia's
    Not really. The US ones are better built but some are still 70s technology with single re-entry vehicles. It's a bit chalk and cheese seemingly.
  9. It is the old pre 1930's Keynesianism.
    Trump wants to increase blue collar employment.
    The only way the Government can reliably increase the workforce is by employing people on the Federal payroll.
    Instead of hiring legions of Civil Servants, the next best option is to commission huge public works ( A la Roosevelt) or a huge rearmament programme (A la Adolf)
    BUT- All these require deficit financing to kick start.
    Whether you hire people to dig drains or build tanks, they are all ultimately on the governments payroll.

    The US could, in theory, spend Russia into the ground the way Reagan did, without firing a shot. It just requires China to keep on buying US Gilts.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Looks like military:
    Trump vows military build-up, hammers nationalist themes
  11. One of my problems with Trump is his lack of understanding when it comes to US history.
    Who messes with America?

    Prior to both WWs the US had a very small army (I think in 1940 its army was smaller than the BEF). The trouble with putting money into the forces is that it just sits there and does not do any thing. It's good for willy waving but sod all else. He has said that the US needs to improve its infrastructure and that would pay dividends in the long run. This is probably an area where Trump actually does know something as poor infrastructure would have an impact on his prime business.
  12. America's electrical and road infrastructure has been creaking for years. It's just been patch after patch to keep things going. Trump could easily spend billions at home, updating the systems, without firing a shot anywhere.
  13. That would work as well. It is what FDR did. After the Flint shambles and Hurrican Katrina the Federal government should have been investing very heavily in drains, sewage and dams. It hasn't, and their systems are way outdated and overloaded.
    It would leave the US military with a lot of ageing platforms and a few bits of top line kit.
    Bit like us really.
    • Like Like x 1