Try invading Russia, though, that’s the difference.
Because their leaders (Putin) don’t care. They send their men to the slaughter and when they’re gone they send a million more (exaggerated numbers).
Yes invading Russia would be dumb. But that’s war. In war, you almost always invade the perceived enemies country eventually. You don’t just show up there, but it’s the true way to beat them in an all out war. I don’t see putin being the kinda guy to surrender. In a war, America would likely have to invade Russia eventually.
You’ll need some help, though, because you fight Russia, you fight their friends, they fight you and your friend, and you got world war 3. Either you invade eventually or bomb them like Japan, but the bombing will only come when Russia has been pushed into a corner.
And yes, Russia is a super power. America may be the leading power, but Russia is right up there, too. USA, Russia and UK likely have the most influence in the world (probably missing quite a few important ones).
Stop being so confrontational, too. There’s no need for it. Simply share your thoughts and facts and let’s discuss like men, please.
Russia won't be much of a factor in the future i think,Russia has canceled its 5th generation fighter the Su57 (aka T50). They will build in some stealth into older planes. Russia is not able to buy large numbers of its new Armata tanks at $4 million each. They will upgrade older T72 tanks. Russia used to be the world leader in space launches. China has most of their older space rocket designs. Russia has recognized that they cannot compete with SpaceX and China in space launches.
Russia cut back its military buildup and has flat military procurement budgets for the next ten years.
Russia has had slow GDP growth or negative GDP growth since 2008.
If the US economy grows at 4% per year then the US adds more than entire Russian economy ($1.7 trillion) in less than 2 years.
Russia is weak and getting weaker relative to the US, India, Europe and the USA.
Russia’s population is shrinking again
In 2017, 1.69 million children were born in Russia which was down by 203,000 compared to 2016 and equal to the number of births in Russia in 2007. It is the third consecutive year that Rosstat has registered a decline in Russia’s birthrate.
In 2016, Russia had 1,893,237 births and 1,887,907 deaths, for a natural population increase of just 5,330 people, not counting immigration. There were about 1,824,340 (12.4/1,000) deaths in 2017. Russia’s population reduced about 131,000 in 2017 from more deaths than births. Russia did have some immigration, Russia population did grow in 2016 by 257,700 people, while in 2017, population growth amounted to only 77,400.
Russia has 782,000 births in the first half of 2018. This is tracking to about 1.55 million births for 2018. Assuming deaths stay level to 2017, then this would be a reduction of about 260,000 people in 2018.
The amount of births in Russia will likely remain low as an echo of the baby bust from 1992-2010.
Russians living in poverty increased from 15.5 million in 2013 to 19.8 million in 2016.
The number of children born in Russia in 2014 was officially reported as 1.9 million, but that figure included children born in Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula that Moscow seized that year.
Russia’s population peaked at more than 148 million in 1992, the year after the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia’s population was claimed to be 144.3 million in 2016.
There are no official population statistics for 2016. Rosstat, the official Government statistics agency, suggested that the population of Russia in 2011 was 141.8 million, and the CIA estimated that the population was even lower: 138.7 million.
Former finance minister Aleksey Kudrin forecasts a decline of 10 million people of working-age in Russians by 2033.
Russia would have had a very high ratio of old people in its populations, except there was a surge in people dying from alcohol and other issues.
Russia stabilized its longevity and increased life expectancy from 64 in 1994 back to 72.
Russia’s population could shrink to about 110 million in 2050. Although the UN projects a population fo about 132 million in 2050.
By 2050, Poland and Ukraine with some NATO support would probably have the economic and military might to resist a conventional Russian attack.
Russia should Negotiate peace with Ukraine, get more foreign investment, fix the corruption
Russia’s per capita GDP is less than Poland and Hungary, which were part of the USSR. Poland has been consistently growing at 4% per year. Russia has a fairly well-educated population. A peaceful and open Russia that invested in improving education and public health could match Poland’s growth.
Russia could get the foreign investment to finish modernizing its economy. They had the growth and investment from 1999-2008.
Russia needs to fix its crime and corruption problems.
Russia needs to fix itself up and improve its economy by making itself as useful as possible to China, India, ASEAN and Europe. There is high growth around Russia. A peaceful, clean Russia could have a lot of tourism and could participate in the economic growth around it.
Russia needs more babies and immigration more than it needs military equipment.
Let’s be real.
I’m not hating. I’m being realistic.
America has won just one time since WWII. Korea considered a draw. Vietnam considered an outright loss (more political, but still). Won desert storm. Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures so far. The main issue with Iraq and Afghanistan is you can’t win because there’s no way you’re going to destroy an idea (an idea that you guys created), but you can’t leave or just ask for peace at this point anymore. Ya fucked up, big time.
Technologically, you’re the best. Strategically, on the ground, hmm..
So amazing that one if your own prefers to use special forces from a different country instead of his own, lol.
I’m not saying any specific country is better because in reality we’re all not nearly as powerful as we think. I honestly feel america has become too reliant on their tech and their soldiers aren’t what they used to be. There’s more to war than just bombs. How are you on the ground? Definitely one of the best still, but without your bombs you’re in a real hard place.
Believe me I’m on your side when I say this. These are just historical facts. So don’t hate on me, hate reality.
I love you, Murica. Canada is more Americanized than you seem to think (except the French part above us).
This is the reality of war. Let’s understand these countries we’ve all made fun of are VERY capable. They’re stronger than you’d think. America has went through hell time and time again and in the end it’s almost always never worked out. War is complicated.
This is gonna upset some people for no reason, but oh well. Ignore facts again and share opinions. Time for war.
I'm not upset at all. In fact I wish American military and the presidents in office would look at our failures and not rush into these places and fight never-ending/losing battles.I’m just saying you don’t always win, lol. Apparently that makes people mad but it’s reality. No military is as strong as some people make them out to be.
No crap Sherlock, thus this is why we don’t do it thanks for making my point there’s more to war than just winningIdiot. Dropping those bombs would’ve destroyed everything for everybody and the entire fucking world would’ve flipped on you for using ILLEGAL WEAPONS. Yeah let’s bomb and destroy ‘nam, fucking over everything we were trying to fight for in the first place. You’re a genius. Again, there’s more to it than just dropping fucking bombs. War is not so straight forward. It’s the worlds biggest kind of crime sometimes. Is crime straight? Kill thousands, millions, call it legal.
Because their leaders (Putin) don’t care. They send their men to the slaughter and when they’re gone they send a million more (exaggerated numbers).
Yes invading Russia would be dumb. But that’s war. In war, you almost always invade the perceived enemies country eventually. You don’t just show up there, but it’s the true way to beat them in an all out war. I don’t see putin being the kinda guy to surrender. In a war, America would likely have to invade Russia eventually.
And yes, Russia is a super power. America may be the leading power, but Russia is right up there, too. USA, Russia and UK likely have the most influence in the world (probably missing quite a few important ones).
I'm not upset at all. In fact I wish American military and the presidents in office would look at our failures and not rush into these places and fight never-ending/losing battles.
1812 - loss..
Korea - considered a stalemate
A political one, not a military one. We never lost a battle.Vietnam - loss
Iraq and Afghanistan - ongoing, complete fucking disaster. Half win? You got saddam but now there’s other nonsense that will never end.
I don't think I was acting like anything. Regardless of the reasons and the mechanics behind the scenes my point still stands.You act as if things are the way they used to be. A never ending war = constant flow of money into the complex that is running the show. Why else do you think we only send like 4% of our forces into places without the backing of most of our equipment and using next to none of our hardware?!?
If those in power actually wanted a fast war with any of these places we could bring a few million troops, 10,000 tanks and have so many planes in the skies they wouldnt see daylight...a small country like Afghanistan would be under full control in a day. Russia couldnt do it because they were already a dying nation and went in thinking they would steamroll them on top of it.
Anyway, the OP doesnt know history. Just the Barbary War proves him wrong. Brand new country creates a new force, the Marines and does what all of Europe could not do for over 300 years...defeat the pirate nations that was bitch slapping them around, taking their cargo and people as slaves. So yeah. America did not have more advanced weapons and by far and away was smaller in size than those they fought against and did what Europe could not do even though they had a much greater amount of power.
Not to get too political here but it seems as if late one side of the aisle is better at resisting the tempation of the MIC at least when it comes to starting confrontations.
Small conflicts are one thing endless war with a lot of boots on the ground is another. Obama did keep merica in Afghanistan and Iraq and I will forever hold him accountable for it. It is why I think he isn't that great of a president , he promised a few things and didn't hold up his offer.Two sides of the same coin. Republicans started Iraq, Afghanistan. Dems started Syria and Lybia while continuing the previous wars another 8 years and then ISIS. Before those, Clinton had a bunch of small conflicts and before him, Reagan/Bush had many small ones. The idea the parties are different is a lie, that can be seen by the fear they create when the other is in power. Dem in power, "they are coming for our guns!", Repub in power "Roe V Wade is gonna end!"...heard this BS for 30 years and not once has either actually tried to pass something in congress to do either, and they do this all while actually passing similar crap no matter who is in power.
Seriously, the crap is so mixed up that Obama manages to pass Obamacare and Dems and Repubs actually call it "socialized" when its actually a corporate capitalist bill that forces people to be customers or be fined...they have so many fooled into believing they are different...sad really.
Yeah, this is pretty much why I’m more libertarian/classical liberal, haha. Live and let live.Yeah, by force, you can't make people do shit, nor should you.
But things in Iraq could have worked out better with proper planning and incentives. You can make people think they want something, or give them things or reasons to want what you want. But there was no plan or conversation with the locals to get that done.
With no understanding of the people, or what they wanted, and no plan for the future, there was no chance of any lasting victory
Fair point. Perhaps they can, haha. Honestly, I don’t think we even know. The Israelis don’t tell us shit.Even Israel with all the shit we send them?
But I'm not talking about or focusing on the other issues . For me my main voting points have always been "how the fuck are you gonna get us out of there?" And yet no side has delivered. But aleast one side at least tries to cup my balls while they lie to me.
Excuse my ignorance but isn't Syria more of a UN issue, and are we really dealing with conflict or have any significant role in Libya right now?
at the start of the war, Afghanistan had ONLY 75 KM of paved road IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.....(and those were all paved by the Russians)Afghanistan didn't even have roads until we built them. Stop talking like you know something little kid.