Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Warsaw pact and satellite states

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 23 Feb 2005, 22:13
But don’t forget China. Once America and Russia and their allies had fought it out, the Chinese would have the world ripe for the picking. That’s what they planned to do if the Cold War had ever gone ‘hot’.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10808
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Feb 2005, 22:45
I assumed that China would ally with the US.


I am also aware that China has a lot of potential. And if there leaders play their cards right, China may become a very influential super power.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 00:49
China is a force to be reckoned with. There are too many of them to effectively defeat them, and think of how much of Americas industry is based in china… declare war on them and all those factories stop exporting to you, that is a really big problem, especially to a consumer country like the U.S.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 1236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 05:12
Unperson
Post 24 Feb 2005, 02:23
Look, just because the USA would be stupid enough to take on Russia, doesn't meant the rest of the world would be...

Look, The USA's army is better for attacking smaller, less armed troops defending their homes, not a country with the ability to destroy the planet 12 times over, sheesh.

And your claims about other countries taking on Russia, well thats absurd! any country with half a brain in their leaders head would know that taking on Russia would be suicidal, their population is large, their country is amssive, and unless you know the landscape like the Russians themselves, they could not possibly manage to muster their tanks around...

Russia's tank force is in the 100,000 (manned and surplus) and their newer tanks T-72B could destroy any western tank...

It would take a world effort to take out Russia, and I doubt the UN would like to send millions of men to their death, I'm not sure about US mentality but I'm pretty sure they aren't that dumb.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 07:54
Quote:
Nikita- I don't think I said this so when I said US I also ment their allies (in the UN), ie Great Britain, France Germany, ect.


France & Britain between them, have around 800 nukes, hardly comparable to Russia; there forces are tiny, the French have the LeClerc, about the only thing going for them.

Quote:
Russia's tank force is in the 100,000 (manned and surplus) and their newer tanks T-72B could destroy any western tank...


Russia's tank force is 21,820. T-72B could not defeat the LeClerc.

China would side with Russia -- as they are Russia's number one military trading partner -- India would too, as Russia is doing joint military exercises with them -- that must mean something. China is also scheduled to do military exercises with the Russian navy this year.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 24 Feb 2005, 09:38
Quote:
They revolt more easily than Westerners. They're much less complacent. Witness the American election two months ago. Highly questionable results, but Kerry concedes, and nothing happens.


What about the Russian election in 1995 when Yeltsin was caught cheating, and Zhuganov conceded?

Quote:
But what needs to be done is once the former ussr is restored split germany back up because it was russias smartest move because with germany split up their weaker. but has france re joined nato?


Where do you get your crazy ideas? And about France, they never left. They were just always sort of an autonomous client of NATO, with their own nuclear weapons, design systems, etc, but cooperated with the others and would (most likely) go to war against the USSR had an invasion of Europe started.

Quote:
The Warsaw pact doesn't need to be reformed, as Russia is quite capable of taking America already


Are you kidding? Or do you mean 'completely destroying the world' by 'taking America'? Because conventionally, Russia has no chance. America has a bigger population, more bases close to Russia, more updated technology, nonconscripted soldiers, and a crapload of money (all of which Russia doesn't have).

Quote:
True, even if ideologies collide, it is always better for your people to cooperate than to constantly argue. You must always think of the people first, never yourself.


It's interesting. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev sought cooperation with the US, and what did it get in the end when things got crazy? Nothing. They wouldn't even let Gorbachev into the GATT or IMF.
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 09:43
Quote:
Are you kidding? Or do you mean 'completely destroying the world' by 'taking America'? Because conventionally, Russia has no chance. America has a bigger population, more bases close to Russia, more updated technology, nonconscripted soldiers, and a crapload of money (all of which Russia doesn't have).


No, i'm not "joking". Conventionally, Russian numbers make it equal between the two [American & Russia], America has no significant technological gap over Russia, the same goes for Russia. It is ignorant to say " Russia has no change ", as it is quite clear that they do. UnConscripted soliders are meaningless when it comes to patriotism, Russian patriotism is superior to American non-conscripts -- Americans would crack under the pressure of having a more than worthy enemy. Money, from various sectors, could quickly be allocated elsewhere, or in a state of war, the countries industry could be mobilized for war -- in which case money wouldn't be that important -- but Raw Materials would be decisive.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 24 Feb 2005, 09:48
But surely you recognize that Russia is not the superpower they once were? And that Russian conscripted soldiers are more poorly trained than American ones (who also happen to have a larger population base to draw on). While Russian technologies have been getting squeezed out of the cold war era, Americans have been upgrading their armies (especially recently), while the Russians have many units almost completely incapable of fighting (mostly poor young conscripts that have to serve or face jail time).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 24 Feb 2005, 09:51
By the way Nikita, have you served in the Russian army (just asking out of interest)?
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 10:02
No I haven't. Have you?

Quote:
But surely you recognize that Russia is not the superpower they once were?


I recognise them as a superpower, as they are still more than capable of dealing with America using nuclear weapons, they are a military superpower- not an economic Superpower.

Quote:
And that Russian conscripted soldiers are more poorly trained than American ones


Many of them have had intense experience in the Chechyan campaign -- Putin will be putting 25% of the military on the "pay-roll" [Don't remember what it's called], and it will continue to reduce the amount of conscripts in the army. Which, are not 'poorly' trained, have you seen the training of which they go through? vigorous training it is; not comparable to Spetsnaz/Alpha training, unfortunately.

Quote:
(who also happen to have a larger population base to draw on)


I'm aware that Russia has 20 million trained reservers, i'm not sure of the Americans figures? do you know?

Quote:
While Russian technologies have been getting squeezed out of the cold war era


Not there technologies, there forces, there technology is still world class, allocated a large amount of the funds. Whilst it is still seen as viable for Russia to use a large army -- I don't know why, but the ministey percieves it as so.

American armies are being upgraded, yes, but the style of army needed to attack Russia, isn't a lightly armored quick striking force, it is a powerful force, such as that of the European armies during the Cold War.

Quote:
while the Russians have many units almost completely incapable of fighting (mostly poor young conscripts that have to serve or face jail time).


Quite different now. That would apply during the 1998 crisis.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 24 Feb 2005, 10:26
No, I haven't served.

Perhaps you are right about it all, but my only problem is with numbers. The US puts almost half a trillion dollars into the army every year, something Russia just can't compete with. If a war broke out, Russia could put everything into the army, but America could put just say half of it's economy in and still have everyone living pretty comfortably.

As for your reservist figure, you're right. I looked up America's figures on Yahoo, and they only have a figure of about 2,000,000, while Russia's is about 30,000,000. Even if America is capable of taking out more Russian soldiers, every one of theirs would be that much more of a loss, although over the long-term more could be trained (like in World War 2).
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 10:38
Quote:
Perhaps you are right about it all, but my only problem is with numbers. The US puts almost half a trillion dollars into the army every year, something Russia just can't compete with. If a war broke out, Russia could put everything into the army, but America could put just say half of it's economy in and still have everyone living pretty comfortably.


Russian army can operate efficently for a low amount of money, as it was designed to do -- all Russian weapons are extremely less difficult to maintain and use, but still extremely effective and advanced. The American economy is strong, but would the world support it through a war with Russia -- China for one is a large exporter/importer for America, as they are one of Russias allies, America would lose them. France & Germany would be against both sides, perhaps Britain also -- but the thing is Americas economy would not be as strong or effective during a large war. Also there troops moral would be much lower to that of the Russian troops.

Quote:
As for your reservist figure, you're right. I looked up America's figures on Yahoo, and they only have a figure of about 2,000,000, while Russia's is about 30,000,000. Even if America is capable of taking out more Russian soldiers, every one of theirs would be that much more of a loss, although over the long-term more could be trained (like in World War 2).


Yes, but if the spoilt billionaires sons were called up, how do you think they will go on the battlefield, will they expect everybody else to be there for them? the "high-classes" of America [Which make up quite abit] Could be called on to fight, but I doubt they would be effective, can't you see?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 24 Feb 2005, 13:47
soviet78 wrote:
while the Russians have many units almost completely incapable of fighting (mostly poor young conscripts that have to serve or face jail time).


soviet78 wrote:
And that Russian conscripted soldiers are more poorly trained than American ones


Another fool who thinks western so-called 'professional' soldiers are better trained than eastern conscripts. Hey kid, warfare is not a computer game where conscripts have less hit points and less attack points
. It's not a big philosophy to overcome rough terrain, dig trenches, fire with AK's and RPG's and have adequate physical condition. You can learn it within a year or two while serving your duty. It's like you learn to count in school.

Conscripts are at least as well trained as western sodiers (I'm sure they are better indeed). If we add the better morale of the Russian soldiers you'll get what I'm talking about.
Btw remeber Vietnam? Many of the mobilized Vietnamese soldiers hadn't even served their duty when the war sterted.But still they were fully capable of kicking American asses.

ps I don't know what is the real number of U$ and Russian soldiers today but by the time the Soviet Union still existed it had staggering advantage in terms of numbers.

Quote:
The US puts almost half a trillion dollars into the army every year, something Russia just can't compete with.


This guy is measuring the strength of the armies by their budget.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 14:32
Quote:
Many of the mobilized Vietnamese soldiers hadn't even served their duty when the war sterted.But still they were fully capable of kicking American asses.

That is bullshit and they never won any major battles against US forces.

Conscripts are worse than professional soldiers. Professionals have always better motivation than conscripts. Professional soldiers defending their home country have same morale than conscripts and professionals invading neighbour have better morale.

The only reason why many countries use conscripts is that they are cheap. If they would be so effective, why Russian is moving towards professional army?

Don't fool yourself. Professional army is "it" in near future.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Dec 2004, 21:06
Pioneer
Post 24 Feb 2005, 19:16
Well the Vietcong beat the US army so they couldn't have been that bad...
I overthrew Capitalism in Russia and all I got was this lousy deformed workers state.
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 24 Feb 2005, 19:38
|Nikita*- wrote:

Russian army can operate efficently for a low amount of money, as it was designed to do -- all Russian weapons are extremely less difficult to maintain and use, but still extremely effective and advanced. The American economy is strong, but would the world support it through a war with Russia -- China for one is a large exporter/importer for America, as they are one of Russias allies, America would lose them. France & Germany would be against both sides, perhaps Britain also -- but the thing is Americas economy would not be as strong or effective during a large war. Also there troops moral would be much lower to that of the Russian troops.


Europe would side with America in such a case, whether you want to se trough your propaganda or not. As far as China, it would come down to the simple fact of whom they could get more from--that's who they would support. America can and would offer them more. I hate to say it, but Russia has rapidly become a has-been on the world stage. If they didn't have nukes, nobody would even care about them at this point.

But thisis all nonsense as Europe/America/whomever won't be invading Russia aytime soon. If you believe that they will, then there is no real sense in trying to debate with you.

Just like Russia won't be retaking the Warsaw Pact nations anytime soon as they all ran for the protective umbrella of NATO the FIRST CHANCE that they got.

Quote:
As for your reservist figure, you're right. I looked up America's figures on Yahoo, and they only have a figure of about 2,000,000, while Russia's is about 30,000,000. Even if America is capable of taking out more Russian soldiers, every one of theirs would be that much more of a loss, although over the long-term more could be trained (like in World War 2).


If the Unites States geared up for a total conventional war, there isn't a country on the planet that could outproduce them. Period. The United States has firmly entrenched allies, bases and stockpiles everywhere, and the largest and (perhaps) most technologically advanced industrial infrastructure on the planet.

And Americans are good at war--don't think otherwise.

Quote:
Yes, but if the spoilt billionaires sons were called up, how do you think they will go on the battlefield, will they expect everybody else to be there for them? the "high-classes" of America [Which make up quite abit] Could be called on to fight, but I doubt they would be effective, can't you see?


This is hilarious. Your statement shows no real understanding of things in regards to the United States. I don't know if this will get through to you folks, but it is Communism that has been mostly thrown on to the garbage pile of history...not Capitalism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 21:48
Andy Bowden wrote:
Well the Vietcong beat the US army so they couldn't have been that bad...

They really did not beat US Army, they won because US Army could not beat them. That is the way how smaller nations/guerillas can win bigger opponent. They can't defeat bigger enemy in military terms, but they can make war so costly that enemy will decide to do something else.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 24 Feb 2005, 22:24
Quote:
They really did not beat US Army, they won because US Army could not beat them.


Isn’t that technically the same thing? And what about the NVA? They didn’t have all the fancy gadgets that the Yankees had and they didn’t exactly just get massacred.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 25 Feb 2005, 07:04
Quote:
Europe would side with America in such a case, whether you want to se trough your propaganda or not. As far as China, it would come down to the simple fact of whom they could get more from--that's who they would support. America can and would offer them more. I hate to say it, but Russia has rapidly become a has-been on the world stage. If they didn't have nukes, nobody would even care about them at this point.


Germany & France, wouldn't side with either -- if they did, side with America, it wouldn't make much differene anyway. China would side with Russia -- as they have many arms/technological deals -- Recent joint military exercises.

Quote:
Just like Russia won't be retaking the Warsaw Pact nations anytime soon as they all ran for the protective umbrella of NATO the FIRST CHANCE that they got.


Georgia, Kazak will come together with Russia again; as i'm sure belarus will do also.

Quote:
If the Unites States geared up for a total conventional war, there isn't a country on the planet that could outproduce them. Period. The United States has firmly entrenched allies, bases and stockpiles everywhere, and the largest and (perhaps) most technologically advanced industrial infrastructure on the planet.


I suppose they would have Batman & Superpower, right? If Russia, geared up for a totally conventional war there is not a country in the world which could achieve victory of them, that's that. Allies soon become enemys, in times of war, you can't really rely that much on allies.

Quote:
And Americans are good at war--don't think otherwise.


Russia has had much more experience -- as it is older than America, or do you think America was founded by the "gods"?. Russia has far more experience -- unless the experience America fighting third world armies, will be of any use? do you "see" it as being useful, Nil?

Quote:
This is hilarious. Your statement shows no real understanding of things in regards to the United States. I don't know if this will get through to you folks, but it is Communism that has been mostly thrown on to the garbage pile of history...not Capitalism.


It's not nice, is it Nil? people trying to tell you something about your own country? Communism was not "thrown" into the "garbage pile", it was simply overthrown, how absurd, it is destiny for a true Communist State to come along, it can not be "thrown" into the "garbage", unlike American imperilism, which will soon come to an end.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 25 Feb 2005, 07:08
Turhapuro wrote:
That is bullshit and they never won any major battles against US forces.


Lol! This guy wants to rewrite the world's history

Turhapuro wrote:
Conscripts are worse than professional soldiers. Professionals have always better motivation than conscripts. Professional soldiers defending their home country have same morale than conscripts and professionals invading neighbour have better morale.


Once again you're so wrong.

Turhapuro wrote:
The only reason why many countries use conscripts is that they are cheap. If they would be so effective, why Russian is moving towards professional army?

Fool - Large conscript armies are much more expensive than small profesional ones. A number of countries in East Europe including Bulgaria are going to reduce and professionalize their armies because they cannot maintain them. ( IF YOU ARE UNAWARE THAT LARGE CONSCRIPT ARMIES ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, YOU SHOULD REALLY GIVE UP THIS CONVERSATION )

Actually those countries used conscripts because in terms of war they'd have huge numerical superiority( around 12:1 infantry, 8:1 tanks, 6:1 artillery for equal population ).And those troops are NOT worse trained than their opponents.

I agree however that there is place for regular troops in every modern army.Entire airforce, certain parts of the navy,special forces, certain part of the anti-aircraft troops, tank commanders - they all should be professionals.
But there is no need for professional infantry, tank crues, paratroopers, truck drivers,artillery units etc.... All they can be very well trained within 2 years. And when the war starts every eastern country could mobilize at least 3/4 of it's male population and send it to the front within 24 hours achieving staggering numerical superiority.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.