Ukrainian Crisis

[Shofercia]

And here we have John McCain, showing that he knows less than Boehner. Yep, it's possible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 ... lp00000592

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor Thursday to castigate fellow Republicans for holding up aid to Ukraine over provisions boosting funding for the International Monetary Fund. "What has happened? Where are our priorities? Is the IMF, no matter whether it's fixed or not fixed with this legislation, more important than the lives of thousands of people? Is that what we're talking about here?" he said. He invoked Republicans' secular saint -- President Ronald Reagan.

Oh shit! McCain invoked Reagan. Ya better run Johnny boy. Except:

McCain's remarks stand in contrast to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who said the IMF provision to boost funding had nothing to do with the Ukraine bill. Ukraine has long been a recipient of IMF loans, and is negotiating a new package of loans with the IMF.

Knowing less facts than Boehner. Wow. Just wow. And he even invoked Reagan. Liberals are probably going to be laughing at that, Centrists too.

[Aterna]

Absolutely awesome illustration. Well done!

You sir have earned yourself a strongly worded letter for invading a country and some sanctions that probably wont do anything.

[Aterna]

Tough shit for them then if they don't, they're the most effective measure they have for applying desperately needed newspaper to face without escalating.

Although if they don't I suppose they could always just begin the process of fast-tracking a NATO membership. If Russia continually feels the need to invade neighbors it's only natural their neighbors seek alliances to stop such, and such wouldn't be a direct military escalation.

Continually? Georgia started unjustified war. That's BBC's headline, not mine. It's based on the Swiss report. Chechnya was re-annexed after Chechnya invaded Dagestan. So again I ask, continually? When, prior to 2014, did Putin invade anyone? Seriously, this kind of bullshit needs to stop. Oh, and thing about European elections, is that they have a multiparty system, so if some parties are saying "tough shit", said "tough shit" might be thrown in their faces come election time.

Deterrence, deterrence, deterrence. If America did not have such disastrous foreign policies, and if support for other countries also came in the form of showing up with something, then this would never have happened.

Since the Russian government is not admitting that its soldiers are in Crimea (Putin says they are local-self defense blah blah), then America should play along. We should say ( BUT NOT ACTUALLY DO); "Since these self-defense groups have illegally seized Ukraine, and are serving as independent forces, and possess weaponry that violates blah blah blah, we (being the Americans and NATO) shall assist Ukraine in ridding these terrorists from Crimea. These self-defense groups have become a hazard to the very health of the people they where supposed to protect. As we have dedicated ourselves to fight terrorism abroad, we shall give these self-defense forces five ( or however long enough time for them to pull back and for NATO to be ready) days to retreat and return to their homes. If they feel their rights are being violated, then we will investigate this matter. However, if these armed groups do not demonstrate responsibility, then we will be forced to give Crimea back to Ukraine by means of force."

And of course, in the background, major diplomacy would be going on.

If America didn't (allegedly,) assist in couping Yanukovich, we wouldn't have this situation in the first place. If the US & EU replaced Svoboda with Azarov, or if the February 21st Agreement was fully honored, or... but here we are now. Your proposal won't work, because the Russians know that US won't attack, as the Crimea is surrounded by water, and amphibious landings are a bitch to carry out against a determined opposition. The only other option would be to try and force a way into the peninsula over a narrow land connection, which would also result in massive casualties. And any NATO aggression would swing East Ukraine straight into Putin's arms.

That's the problem with pretending that spheres of influence don't exist. You can make up whatever interpretation of laws you want. Make Kosovo legal, but not North Kosovo. But soft power can only work if it changes the hard facts on the ground. That's not happening in Ukraine. That's why you're seeing massive panic from certain groups; they cannot believe that soft power failed to work.

I disagree-I think that Putin would just deny that his troops where involved, then most of the "little green men" would just disappear-or Putin could respond in kind by placing some "actual" Russian units in the area.

My proposal would work if the US had a better foreign policy and was less inept. However, if the US had taken the proper actions, we would not even be in this mess in the first place.

Also, an attack does not mean outright invasion. First the US would hit them with aircraft strikes and cruise missiles, then support the Ukrainian forces-besides, the US has much experience with amphibious landings (like the War against North Korea), so I would not call Crimea impregnable. And if Putin retaliated, well, then there goes the planet; but then again, he probably took the markings off his troops just in case something like that happened. So he could deny it.

BUT that won't happen. Eastern Ukraine will be annexed, Western Ukraine will become unstable, and the US and NATO will look as silly as ever...again..

[Lemanrussland]

Continually? Georgia started unjustified war. That's BBC's headline, not mine. It's based on the Swiss report. Chechnya was re-annexed after Chechnya invaded Dagestan. So again I ask, continually? When, prior to 2014, did Putin invade anyone? Seriously, this kind of bullshit needs to stop. Oh, and thing about European elections, is that they have a multiparty system, so if some parties are saying "tough shit", said "tough shit" might be thrown in their faces come election time.




If America didn't (allegedly,) assist in couping Yanukovich, we wouldn't have this situation in the first place. If the US & EU replaced Svoboda with Azarov, or if the February 21st Agreement was fully honored, or... but here we are now. Your proposal won't work, because the Russians know that US won't attack, as the Crimea is surrounded by water, and amphibious landings are a bitch to carry out against a determined opposition. The only other option would be to try and force a way into the peninsula over a narrow land connection, which would also result in massive casualties. And any NATO aggression would swing East Ukraine straight into Putin's arms.

That's the problem with pretending that spheres of influence don't exist. You can make up whatever interpretation of laws you want. Make Kosovo legal, but not North Kosovo. But soft power can only work if it changes the hard facts on the ground. That's not happening in Ukraine. That's why you're seeing massive panic from certain groups; they cannot believe that soft power failed to work.

I disagree-I think that Putin would just deny that his troops where involved, then most of the "little green men" would just disappear-or Putin could respond in kind by placing some "actual" Russian units in the area.

My proposal would work if the US had a better foreign policy and was less inept. However, if the US had taken the proper actions, we would not even be in this mess in the first place.

Also, an attack does not mean outright invasion. First the US would hit them with aircraft strikes and cruise missiles, then support the Ukrainian forces-besides, the US has much experience with amphibious landings (like the War against North Korea), so I would not call Crimea impregnable. And if Putin retaliated, well, then there goes the planet; but then again, he probably took the markings off his troops just in case something like that happened. So he could deny it.

BUT that won't happen. Eastern Ukraine will be annexed, Western Ukraine will become unstable, and the US and NATO will look as silly as ever...again..

Further escalation would probably not work. The most hawkish thing I can imagine happening is trade sanctions or an embargo against Russia. I doubt even that will happen.

Ukraine will end up like Georgia, with Russian puppet states/Russian troops (oh sorry, "peacekeepers") in it's territory. Russia will probably bring up Kosovo as a defense again as well.

[Lyttenburgh]

1. Forgot to put:" Imo, will be or there is a on my scale a significantly high risk..."

Oh, right, just one silly "fact" that you "forgot" to mention! Really? Do you really believe that some time in the future, when the stars align right Mr. Putin would magically transform into Stalin? Excuse my ignorance, but where did he find anywhere in Russia White-Sea-Channel like mass employment of forced labour? Or any potential of mass employing of forced labour? Do you know that Russia signed moratorium on death penalty? It's so easy to compare anyone you don't like either to Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, without providing any kind of proof. They are the Bad Guys, right? It's actually harder to analyze real-life politicians, without knee-jerk answer "He is like some bad dude from the past, ergo he is the same as that Bad Dude in all respects. Move over" - and this is pretty dumb.

2. Oh boy! Where should I start? Perhaps I will define what is a dictatorship.

snip

Kid, you are totally confusing the terms. First, you called Putin fascist. When asked to prove such claim, you answered with some generalization of what "a dictator is". A half of mentioned criteria could be applied to, say, USA or countered outright, like - there is no Cult of Personality of Putin - study history and yor much loathed Stalin's, or Mao - THAT were some cults of personality. Just because here in Russia Putin enjoys a high personal rating does not mean the people worship hem.

But the end line is these - Fascist are all dictators, not all dictators are fascist, and Putin is definatly not a dictator. And you don't know what are you talking about.

3. "Accused of"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controvers ... _of_Moscow

Unprooven accusation? That's it? Pfft! Where is the precise data? "We are not amused".

Well, I feel that my country is threatened. My country is next to Russia, which has probably thousands of nukes and maybe 30 times stronger military or something. It would be very naive and selfish to claim that my country isn't indirectly threatened by Putin's actions in Ukraine.

Where are you from? Finland? Russia don't fucking need it (I would cited Finland's official "Neutral status", by you won't believe...). Baltic states? Poland? Georgia? One piece of advice - don't treat Russia and Russians like crap and you'll have nothing to fear.

I would replace it with someone who has been democratically elected, plus let those imprisoned and murdered/disappeared people from the opposition to nominate in the elections.

...and, anything else I forgot?

Yes, you apparently forgot that Putin's politics were popular among the Russians (especially Foreign), and that "democratic" opposition stand no chance on any elections in Russia. So in the event of disappereance of Putin right now, this very day, whe favorites for the Presidency woulkd be either Putin's former vice-premier and one time Defense minister Ivanov, or anyone from the communists.

[Shofercia]

Continually? Georgia started unjustified war. That's BBC's headline, not mine. It's based on the Swiss report. Chechnya was re-annexed after Chechnya invaded Dagestan. So again I ask, continually? When, prior to 2014, did Putin invade anyone? Seriously, this kind of bullshit needs to stop. Oh, and thing about European elections, is that they have a multiparty system, so if some parties are saying "tough shit", said "tough shit" might be thrown in their faces come election time.




If America didn't (allegedly,) assist in couping Yanukovich, we wouldn't have this situation in the first place. If the US & EU replaced Svoboda with Azarov, or if the February 21st Agreement was fully honored, or... but here we are now. Your proposal won't work, because the Russians know that US won't attack, as the Crimea is surrounded by water, and amphibious landings are a bitch to carry out against a determined opposition. The only other option would be to try and force a way into the peninsula over a narrow land connection, which would also result in massive casualties. And any NATO aggression would swing East Ukraine straight into Putin's arms.

That's the problem with pretending that spheres of influence don't exist. You can make up whatever interpretation of laws you want. Make Kosovo legal, but not North Kosovo. But soft power can only work if it changes the hard facts on the ground. That's not happening in Ukraine. That's why you're seeing massive panic from certain groups; they cannot believe that soft power failed to work.

I disagree-I think that Putin would just deny that his troops where involved, then most of the "little green men" would just disappear-or Putin could respond in kind by placing some "actual" Russian units in the area.

My proposal would work if the US had a better foreign policy and was less inept. However, if the US had taken the proper actions, we would not even be in this mess in the first place.

Also, an attack does not mean outright invasion. First the US would hit them with aircraft strikes and cruise missiles, then support the Ukrainian forces-besides, the US has much experience with amphibious landings (like the War against North Korea), so I would not call Crimea impregnable. And if Putin retaliated, well, then there goes the planet; but then again, he probably took the markings off his troops just in case something like that happened. So he could deny it.

BUT that won't happen. Eastern Ukraine will be annexed, Western Ukraine will become unstable, and the US and NATO will look as silly as ever...again..

If those are indeed Russian Special Forces, I wouldn't recommend messing with them. You'd need someone like the Seals to go toe to toe. In terms of amphibious landings: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

That's against Iran. If the US opts for amphibious landings, by pure coincidence the "self defense forces" might end up having submarines are their disposal, after all, what effective self defense forces can survive without subs these days? The military option is out, and the Russians know it. Threatening it won't change a thing.

The problems that US faces were, as you said, created by an inept foreign policy. The smart move was to temporarily join the Customs Union, or take forever applying, stabilize Ukraine's economy, and only then shift to the EU, provided that the Crimeans and Eastern Ukrainians truly wanted it, and have said move left by politicians acceptable to the East. Neither Turchinov, (viewed as Western version of Yanukovich,) nor Yatsenuyk, (Yushenko Jr.) nor Tihnyabok (fucking racist,) fit that role. And Klichko wasn't simply enough to counterbalance them in the eyes of Eastern Ukraine. He's at best a Germanic-Ukrainian who leans West.

The problems now is the utter ignorance of anything remotely Eastern Ukrainian as "pro-Russian", and the pitting of East vs West Ukraine. That's utter stupidity on the part of the US and the EU that no amount of legalese can change. I know I've said this before, but sending Oligarchs as Posadniks, while arresting the few popular politicians left in Eastern Ukraine who might be willing to somehow compromise... it's like they're handing Putin East Ukraine and Crimea. And Putin being Putin, will say "Spasibo," take it, and laugh at the sanctions.

This is why you vet the people that you're supporting. "Hmm, Yatsenuyk, less than 15 percent approval, less than five percent in the East, probably not good. Tihnyabok, fucking racist, won't work." And so on. Putin's got no issues vetting his allies, and kicking out the ones who fail, or withdrawing Russian support, which is why he doesn't end up looking silly. I'm referring to Russia's major allies and/or the actual players, not someone who hoists a flag and think he's super awesome.

[The Grand World Order]

snip

That was against an "Iranian" force under the command of a then-active United States Marine Corps General Officer who already knew everything BluFor was going to do. Everyone likes to cite this as a "ANYONE CAN BEAT THE UNITED STATES" source yet fail to note that it was an American leading a hypothetical force in a simulation that was purely speculation and number crunching. If war could be accurately predicted every time, someone would've taken over the world by now.

As for Russian Special Forces, no, you wouldn't need the SEALs to go toe-to-toe with them. In fact, in a symmetrical conflict, as in, both sides know where the other is and both have support, the light infantry nature of Special Forces troops puts them at a disadvantage, because honestly, they might not ever even see the Americans they're about to engage. They might get hit with artillery, or tangle up with a Bradley at just under a kilometer. This is generally why sprinkling SF units in with your regulars isn't the best idea unless you're doing COIN or going against an enemy with nothing other than direct ground forces. Even if you disregarded this, yes, Spetsnaz guys are tough, but a lot of their training is for flash and intimidation... I'm not saying US Army regulars, man-for-man, would do better than them at a CQB showdown, but I highly doubt you'd need to go up as high as the Navy SEALs/MARSOC/Delta to deal with them.



I had the recent luxury of having former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visit my unit (which is fitting given what we specifically do); while he mostly talked over issues with the shrinking military budget and our (the Marine Corps) shift back to MEUs and amphibious operations, he -did- briefly touch on the situation in the Crimea. While he's not the Secretary of Defense anymore, he did say that he's certain that Crimea's Russia's now. That's that. They have it, the US isn't going to do much about it and won't until Russia hits a NATO member, in which case it's on like honkey kong (though in different words, of course).

[Shofercia]

snip

That was against an "Iranian" force under the command of a then-active United States Marine Corps General Officer who already knew everything BluFor was going to do. Everyone likes to cite this as a "ANYONE CAN BEAT THE UNITED STATES" source yet fail to note that it was an American leading a hypothetical force in a simulation that was purely speculation and number crunching. If war could be accurately predicted every time, someone would've taken over the world by now.

As for Russian Special Forces, no, you wouldn't need the SEALs to go toe-to-toe with them. In fact, in a symmetrical conflict, as in, both sides know where the other is and both have support, the light infantry nature of Special Forces troops puts them at a disadvantage, because honestly, they might not ever even see the Americans they're about to engage. They might get hit with artillery, or tangle up with a Bradley at just under a kilometer. This is generally why sprinkling SF units in with your regulars isn't the best idea unless you're doing COIN or going against an enemy with nothing other than direct ground forces. Even if you disregarded this, yes, Spetsnaz guys are tough, but a lot of their training is for flash and intimidation... I'm not saying US Army regulars, man-for-man, would do better than them at a CQB showdown, but I highly doubt you'd need to go up as high as the Navy SEALs/MARSOC/Delta to deal with them.



I had the recent luxury of having former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visit my unit (which is fitting given what we specifically do); while he mostly talked over issues with the shrinking military budget and our (the Marine Corps) shift back to MEUs and amphibious operations, he -did- briefly touch on the situation in the Crimea. While he's not the Secretary of Defense anymore, he did say that he's certain that Crimea's Russia's now. That's that. They have it, the US isn't going to do much about it and won't until Russia hits a NATO member, in which case it's on like honkey kong (though in different words, of course).

First, in that simulation, Iran, (who, BTW, has a much better army than just anyone, it's easily in the top half, possibly even top 30,) was able to prevent a successful amphibious attack. That's it. Iran didn't take on the US and rode back victorious from Washington. Second, the SpetzNaz aren't going to fight symmetrically. You wouldn't know where the SpetzNaz are located. They don't exactly announce their location. The SpetzNaz prototype was developed during the Great Patriotic War, where they fought asymmetrically in a war that couldn't possibly get any more symmetrical, and won. And just because they're light infantry, doesn't mean that they won't use missiles or heavy vehicles. They're trained to use whatever they can find. Think about it, when SEALs go up against Marines, do the SEALs fight symmetrically, even if the warfare is symmetrical?

[The Grand World Order]

First, in that simulation, Iran, (who, BTW, has a much better army than just anyone, it's easily in the top half, possibly even top 30,) was able to prevent a successful amphibious attack. That's it. Iran didn't take on the US and rode back victorious from Washington. Second, the SpetzNaz aren't going to fight symmetrically. You wouldn't know where the SpetzNaz are located. They don't exactly announce their location. The SpetzNaz prototype was developed during the Great Patriotic War, where they fought asymmetrically in a war that couldn't possibly get any more symmetrical, and won. And just because they're light infantry, doesn't mean that they won't use missiles or heavy vehicles. They're trained to use whatever they can find. Think about it, when SEALs go up against Marines, do the SEALs fight symmetrically, even if the warfare is symmetrical?

Yes, but they were under the "command" of an American officer. That makes a hell of a difference, especially when it's literally the only thing you have to go on.

As for the SEALs going against Marines... it doesn't really happen, and I can't think of any exercises that've pitted Marines against SEALs. However, the SEALs don't fight symmetrically... mainly because they don't operate on the front lines. I mean, yeah, the precursor to Spetsnaz operated as saboteurs and the like in WWII, but since then most of what they've done consists of slaughtering civilian governments of third world countries. I'm not saying that extra caution should be exercised, but I'm sure that American regulars wouldn't be helpless to stop them. I mean... the Republican Guard was pretty terrifying.

[Lyttenburgh]

I mean, yeah, the precursor to Spetsnaz operated as saboteurs and the like in WWII, but since then most of what they've done consists of slaughtering civilian governments of third world countries.

What? Ermmm, care to provide some proof?

[Shofercia]

First, in that simulation, Iran, (who, BTW, has a much better army than just anyone, it's easily in the top half, possibly even top 30,) was able to prevent a successful amphibious attack. That's it. Iran didn't take on the US and rode back victorious from Washington. Second, the SpetzNaz aren't going to fight symmetrically. You wouldn't know where the SpetzNaz are located. They don't exactly announce their location. The SpetzNaz prototype was developed during the Great Patriotic War, where they fought asymmetrically in a war that couldn't possibly get any more symmetrical, and won. And just because they're light infantry, doesn't mean that they won't use missiles or heavy vehicles. They're trained to use whatever they can find. Think about it, when SEALs go up against Marines, do the SEALs fight symmetrically, even if the warfare is symmetrical?

Yes, but they were under the "command" of an American officer. That makes a hell of a difference, especially when it's literally the only thing you have to go on.

As for the SEALs going against Marines... it doesn't really happen, and I can't think of any exercises that've pitted Marines against SEALs. However, the SEALs don't fight symmetrically... mainly because they don't operate on the front lines. I mean, yeah, the precursor to Spetsnaz operated as saboteurs and the like in WWII, but since then most of what they've done consists of slaughtering civilian governments of third world countries. I'm not saying that extra caution should be exercised, but I'm sure that American regulars wouldn't be helpless to stop them. I mean... the Republican Guard was pretty terrifying.

The frontrunners of the SpetzNaz operated in the Nazi rear, taking on HQs and sabotaging supply lines, which were most definitely not guarded by civilians. After the Great Patriotic War, they scouted under some of the most difficult conditions they could find themselves in, such as those during August Storm. Other contacts included the jungles of Vietnam. The Recon-Heli squads of Afghanistan were instrumental in turning the war around, but Gorbafool couldn't finish the job. In Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Ossetia, Abkhazia, TransDneistr, various parts of Africa, they had to survive under circumstances that you or I could only imagine. Taking out governments was usually a piece of cake. You had great coordination, proper equipment, clear hierarchy, etc. Hungary 1956, or taking on a certain government wasn't your usual mission.

I've read an account of a mission during the First Chechen War. They started out with bare bones equipment, had to secure a place to live, all the while doing extraction out of a war zone, freeing civilians, coordinating between various groups, etc. All this in addition to their mission of being used as scouts. And I'm not saying that regulars would be helpless; I'm just saying that regulars would lose. When regulars go against elite special forces of any country with a top tier military, they lose.

[Shofercia]

Russia will probably bring up Kosovo as a defense again as well.

It's ironic. America claimed that Kosovo was unique, and constructed all of the legal arguments on that, but Crimea is the one that's actually unique

[The Victorian Empire]

I find it hypocritical that everyone claims Crimea is illegal, but Kosovo isn't. What the fuck, people?

Other than that, I have little opinion on the Ukrainian crisis other than "shit's fucked up yo".

[The Grand World Order]

What? Ermmm, care to provide some proof?

I was mainly pointing to Afghanistan, where they killed Hafizullah Amin, the Afghan President, on December 27th, 1979 after swarming his palace in Afghan uniforms. That, along with Chechnya (which includes massive blunders of hostage rescue operations by Spetsnaz, such as Budyonnovsk Hospital and the Moscow Theater- the latter of which was a failure by Alpha Group, largely considered to be the absolute most elite force in the Russian military), is the most major conflict the Russians have been in since WWII.

It should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I don't say this out of nationalist dick waving, but Russian Spetsnaz forces are nowhere near as capable as USSOCOM or some of Western Europe's special operations groups. Sure, they learn things like "spinning tomahawk throws" and they break shit over their heads and get beat the fuck up for hours on end, but this is pretty useless in the face of a Mozambique drill.

I've read an account of a mission during the First Chechen War. They started out with bare bones equipment, had to secure a place to live, all the while doing extraction out of a war zone, freeing civilians, coordinating between various groups, etc. All this in addition to their mission of being used as scouts. And I'm not saying that regulars would be helpless; I'm just saying that regulars would lose. When regulars go against elite special forces of any country with a top tier military, they lose.

Not necessarily.

It is all based on the specific situation. Attrition doesn't automatically mean victory, and a mob of AK-M flailing militia can put a halt to even the most elite team's plans under the right circumstances. In a symmetrical fight, the line company can bring a hell of a lot more firepower and resources to the table. If you do the same with a special forces unit, you're stripping them of the capability to be anything more than just another line unit that can shoot really well (which, at least with the Marine Corps, is already very heavily emphasized) and has some mean combatives up close. Special forces, by nature, fight like insurgents.

What has the United States been fighting for almost two decades now, while still maintaining a budget geared for fighting the Soviets?

[Shofercia]

What? Ermmm, care to provide some proof?

I was mainly pointing to Afghanistan, where they killed Hafizullah Amin, the Afghan President, on December 27th, 1979 after swarming his palace in Afghan uniforms. That, along with Chechnya (which includes massive blunders of hostage rescue operations by Spetsnaz, such as Budyonnovsk Hospital and the Moscow Theater- the latter of which was a failure by Alpha Group, largely considered to be the absolute most elite force in the Russian military), is the most major conflict the Russians have been in since WWII.

It should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I don't say this out of nationalist dick waving, but Russian Spetsnaz forces are nowhere near as capable as USSOCOM or some of Western Europe's special operations groups. Sure, they learn things like "spinning tomahawk throws" and they break shit over their heads and get beat the fuck up for hours on end, but this is pretty useless in the face of a Mozambique drill.

Ahhh yes, clearly, a couple of failed ops portray the entire operational history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %281993%29

Shall I keep going? Even someone who played counterstrike realizes that hostage freeing operations are some of the most difficult, since hostages can be shot at any time. I could also point out that the extreme majority of the 850 hostages taking during the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis were freed. The same can be said about the Budyonnovsk Hospital Hostage Crisis.

[Shofercia]

I've read an account of a mission during the First Chechen War. They started out with bare bones equipment, had to secure a place to live, all the while doing extraction out of a war zone, freeing civilians, coordinating between various groups, etc. All this in addition to their mission of being used as scouts. And I'm not saying that regulars would be helpless; I'm just saying that regulars would lose. When regulars go against elite special forces of any country with a top tier military, they lose.

Not necessarily.

It is all based on the specific situation. Attrition doesn't automatically mean victory, and a mob of AK-M flailing militia can put a halt to even the most elite team's plans under the right circumstances. In a symmetrical fight, the line company can bring a hell of a lot more firepower and resources to the table. If you do the same with a special forces unit, you're stripping them of the capability to be anything more than just another line unit that can shoot really well (which, at least with the Marine Corps, is already very heavily emphasized) and has some mean combatives up close. Special forces, by nature, fight like insurgents.

What has the United States been fighting for almost two decades now, while still maintaining a budget geared for fighting the Soviets?

Yeah, that works when regulars have at least 10 to 1 odds in terms of manpower, and special forces have nowhere to retreat. Not going to be the hypothetical case in the Crimea. Also, the Russians have been involved in several conflicts recently. Latest war ended in 2008.

[Estruia]

What? Ermmm, care to provide some proof?

I was mainly pointing to Afghanistan, where they killed Hafizullah Amin, the Afghan President, on December 27th, 1979 after swarming his palace in Afghan uniforms. That, along with Chechnya (which includes massive blunders of hostage rescue operations by Spetsnaz, such as Budyonnovsk Hospital and the Moscow Theater- the latter of which was a failure by Alpha Group, largely considered to be the absolute most elite force in the Russian military), is the most major conflict the Russians have been in since WWII.

It should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I don't say this out of nationalist dick waving, but Russian Spetsnaz forces are nowhere near as capable as USSOCOM or some of Western Europe's special operations groups. Sure, they learn things like "spinning tomahawk throws" and they break shit over their heads and get beat the fuck up for hours on end, but this is pretty useless in the face of a Mozambique drill.

I've read an account of a mission during the First Chechen War. They started out with bare bones equipment, had to secure a place to live, all the while doing extraction out of a war zone, freeing civilians, coordinating between various groups, etc. All this in addition to their mission of being used as scouts. And I'm not saying that regulars would be helpless; I'm just saying that regulars would lose. When regulars go against elite special forces of any country with a top tier military, they lose.

Not necessarily.

It is all based on the specific situation. Attrition doesn't automatically mean victory, and a mob of AK-M flailing militia can put a halt to even the most elite team's plans under the right circumstances. In a symmetrical fight, the line company can bring a hell of a lot more firepower and resources to the table. If you do the same with a special forces unit, you're stripping them of the capability to be anything more than just another line unit that can shoot really well (which, at least with the Marine Corps, is already very heavily emphasized) and has some mean combatives up close. Special forces, by nature, fight like insurgents.

What has the United States been fighting for almost two decades now, while still maintaining a budget geared for fighting the Soviets?

To be entirely fair, there were as many as six-thousand enemy combatants against a VERY small detachment of US Army Rangers and support personnel from various countries. No one could come out the victor with those odds.

[Magna Libero]

.."

Kid, you are totally confusing the terms. First, you called Putin fascist. When asked to prove such claim, you answered with some generalization of what "a dictator is". A half of mentioned criteria could be applied to, say, USA or countered outright, like - there is no Cult of Personality of Putin - study history and yor much loathed Stalin's, or Mao - THAT were some cults of personality. Just because here in Russia Putin enjoys a high personal rating does not mean the people worship hem.

But the end line is these - Fascist are all dictators, not all dictators are fascist, and Putin is definatly not a dictator. And you don't know what are you talking about.

Well, I feel that my country is threatened. My country is next to Russia, which has probably thousands of nukes and maybe 30 times stronger military or something. It would be very naive and selfish to claim that my country isn't indirectly threatened by Putin's actions in Ukraine.

Where are you from? Finland? Russia don't fucking need it (I would cited Finland's official "Neutral status", by you won't believe...). Baltic states? Poland? Georgia? One piece of advice - don't treat Russia and Russians like crap and you'll have nothing to fear.

I would replace it with someone who has been democratically elected, plus let those imprisoned and murdered/disappeared people from the opposition to nominate in the elections.

...and, anything else I forgot?

Yes, you apparently forgot that Putin's politics were popular among the Russians (especially Foreign), and that "democratic" opposition stand no chance on any elections in Russia. So in the event of disappereance of Putin right now, this very day, whe favorites for the Presidency woulkd be either Putin's former vice-premier and one time Defense minister Ivanov, or anyone from the communists.

I defined dictator, because that's a little broader than just fascist. I still think that he is an unofficial semi-dictator in a little loose way, though I will admit. The US has nothing to do with the justification of Russia's authoritarianism. Maybe there are some similarities between backwards McCarthyist US and Russia today, though.

Yup, Finland. We aren't neutral anymore, sadly. We have been forced to join the EU for security reasons, and maybe even NATO in the future, or a maybe less probable local alliance between maybe Sweden if even that. Russia is also forcing us to actually have a decent army. Crimea is a strategically important area and I guess that there are a some strategic areas in the archipelago and coasts of Southern Finland to secure Russia's sea routes in the Baltic. I don't know if Putin is interested in the Russian speaking people of my country. Once he flied with a helicopter to ask about "wtf was going on" to Finnish child-protection-authorities when a Russian family had some quarrels.

Putin is a horrible leader. Apparently he wants to ruin the Russian and European economy and his actions are especially bad for Finland than for the rest of EU. And he is bad for peace and co-operation between my country and Russia. Also, I don't think Putin's actions in Ukraine are very popular even according to Kreml and despite the fact that their media is state-controlled:
http://time.com/11952/putin-ukraine-crimea-russia/

Also, as I said it is very naive and selfish to think that we shouldn't be worried, because it does not target my country that one time. "One for all,..." and it won't continue. I mean, Ukraine and my country both share the same neighbor country, which is why we should be worried, because we share the same bully that is even ready to annex their ethnic brethren -- if it's okay to say that in a such nationalist tone.
And "we'll have nothing to fear"? Riiiight. That's just stupid, I don't obey foreign aggressors, maybe I obey my own state just to not get killed by this Putin's armies.

Also, I made a quick google, what is your opinion on this article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ive-russia

[Jinwoy]

Apparently he wants to ruin the Russian and European economy...

Lolsource?

EDIT: Pretty sure only thing Putin has done about the economy is to try and make it big and strong and a major player on the world stage. Mission success.

[Magna Libero]

Apparently he wants to ruin the Russian and European economy...

Lolsource?

EDIT: Pretty sure only thing Putin has done about the economy is to try and make it big and strong and a major player on the world stage. Mission success.

Where have you been during these news? Under a rock? Not heard about the devastating economic impact Putin's actions had on the Russian stock market and their currency, for example?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... rket-falls
markets
http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... iness-live

[Mkuki]

Lolsource?

EDIT: Pretty sure only thing Putin has done about the economy is to try and make it big and strong and a major player on the world stage. Mission success.

Where have you been during these news? Under a rock? Not heard about the devastating economic impact Putin's actions had on the Russian stock market and their currency, for example?

Not that the Russian economy was particularly well off before the intervention. Relative to the West, at least.

[Magna Libero]

Where have you been during these news? Under a rock? Not heard about the devastating economic impact Putin's actions had on the Russian stock market and their currency, for example?

Not that the Russian economy was particularly well off before the intervention. Relative to the West, at least.

Yeah, and this slows down the recovery of the global economy.

[Mkuki]

Apparently he wants to ruin the Russian and European economy...

Lolsource?

EDIT: Pretty sure only thing Putin has done about the economy is to try and make it big and strong and a major player on the world stage. Mission success.

Russia risks being on the losing side of this standoff. At least, economically.

[Jinwoy]

Lolsource?

EDIT: Pretty sure only thing Putin has done about the economy is to try and make it big and strong and a major player on the world stage. Mission success.

Where have you been during these news? Under a rock? Not heard about the devastating economic impact Putin's actions had on the Russian stock market and their currency, for example?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... rket-falls
markets
http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... iness-live

Economy isn't just about the currency (Economics 101). Economy also represents trade. Something Russia is still particularly excellent at.
To answer your question, no I haven't been living under a rock.

[Mkuki]

Where have you been during these news? Under a rock? Not heard about the devastating economic impact Putin's actions had on the Russian stock market and their currency, for example?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... rket-falls
markets
http://www.theguardian.com/business/blo ... iness-live

Economy isn't just about the currency (Economics 101). Economy also represents trade. Something Russia is still particularly excellent at.
To answer your question, no I haven't been living under a rock.

Not if sanctions from the US and the EU come to pass.