What are the most powerful and influential countries?

[Serb]

If the pope would have hurried and didn't send a priest to him today You would be a catholic too...

Not a chance.
We are Orthodox people since 988, if I remember the date correctly. Any attempt of Alexander or any other tsar to convert country to Catholicism would end as a religious war.

for mother USSR that is

No matter, it’s the same.

Anyway that's no military spirit.

Readiness to sacrifice your life for your country is the part of military spirit as I see it.

Imagine You bought a cake. And You realise it is decayed.
You come back to the shop in which You bought it and they say; It is decayed. Of course. Every cake has to decay one day.
But until worms will eat it through, You can try to treat it as if it was new...

The Mir was a space station not a cake. If you can still use an old tool for your missions, then why you should spent huge amount of money and build new tools?
Americans still using WWII Iowa- class battleships in their navy. So what, they are eating a decayed cake?

They didn't try to destroy You completely and that was their mistake.

*Waiting for Luke’s-like Mongol who will apology that Mongols didn’t destroyed an unintelligent, militaristic Russian civilization and let them grow.*

Soviet propaganda. They just wanted to crush revolution and didn't realise that it can't be done. I believe in no French-English pact about partaging Russia

Of course they wanted to crush revolution, but they signed the pact by which Russia was divided between them on zones of interests.

But we must start from something...?
Sweden?

Sure.
Those bastards took victory over our national hockey team yesterday.

But they have right to fight for freedom the same as Palestinians have.

No.
Chechnya is part of Russia. Show me one UN resolution were it is said that Chechnya is an independent state/ was an independent state/ have right to be an independent state.
If tomorrow part of Krakow’s population decide to be an independent state and will declare war against Poland, would you support those people in their war?

[Serb]

Sikander, there is no point in discussing history with a Soviet. They have read too many lies over the years.

Oh sure.
Alexander was an Ottoman or something, right?

[Serb]

Had Chenchya chosen to live peacefully with their neighbors, they would still be an independent state. Instead they chose the path of aggressive war, not so much as to acquire territory, but to spead a fundamentalist Islamic faith.

Exactly.
The attack on Dagestan was a break of limits for us. Those terrorists started the second war, not we are. And they lost this war.

[David Floyd]

No.
Chechnya is part of Russia. Show me one UN resolution were it is said that Chechnya is an independent state/ was an independent state/ have right to be an independent state.
If tomorrow part of Krakow’s population decide to be an independent state and will declare war against Poland, would you support those people in their war?

So people don't have a moral right to demand independence when a nation or government no longer represents their interests?

Oh well, I find it hard to debate someone who thinks the Soviet invasion of Finland was OK but the German one of the Soviet Union was not

[Serb]

Did that give the Russian Army the right to use vaccum bombs on cities?

Why you didn’t just said nukes against cities?
No one, never used a vacuum bombs against cities in Chechnya.

You better should look how your military use such weapons in Afghanistan now. And try to believe less in anti-Soviet/Russian propaganda.

[Serb]

Now if you feel so deeply wounded because some Roman people who died several centuries ago called you after their slaves...

I’m not wounded at all and I’m not a linguist, but again in times of Roman Empire Slavs did not existed. I believe that you are mistaken. Do you think the Slavs called themselves slaves? It’s absurd. On Russian or any other Slav’s language the Slav’s people are called “Slavyane” I guess it’s originated from word “slava” which means “glory” and ‘slavyane’ means- ‘glorious people’.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd




See, the vital difference between the Russian and German or Brit militaries is that while Germany/Britain can afford a large-scale deployment/mobilization, and have working equipment and a good logistics system, Russia has none of that, and can't afford it anyway, besides which morale is far too low in the Russian military

Come and get us if you are so strong and brave.
Germans, Brits or French already tried this and every time they thought that our military is a crap and that it could be easily destroyed. Every time they ended beaten by this ‘crap’ army and running from our country like a beaten dog.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb

Why you didn’t just said nukes against cities?
No one, never used a vacuum bombs against cities in Chechnya.

You better should look how your military use such weapons in Afghanistan now. And try to believe less in anti-Soviet/Russian propaganda.

But it's *so* true....


Seriously, we've used Fuel-air-explosives on caves...and that's it. While western Media has reported the Russians using them on cities like Grozny.

[Bereta_Eder]

Well if you take into account how many civilians have died over the years by american bombs I think you take the prize.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So people don't have a moral right to demand independence when a nation or government no longer represents their interests?

They have right to demand everything they want, the government have right to deny their requests.
If a bunch of crazy communists tomorrow gather in Alaska and will demand an independence of this state from Washington you let them go?

Oh well, I find it hard to debate someone who thinks the Soviet invasion of Finland was OK but the German one of the Soviet Union was not

Who told you that I think that Soviet invasion in Finland was Ok?
I've never said this.

[David Floyd]

Come and get us if you are so strong and brave.
Germans, Brits or French already tried this and every time they thought that our military is a crap and that it could be easily destroyed. Every time they ended beaten by this ‘crap’ army and running from our country like a beaten dog.

The Germans beat the **** out of you in WW1. In WW2, they would have, except for American Lend Lease.

The Japanese won in the Russo-Japanese war.

The British and French won the Crimean War.

The Finns inflicted hugely disproportionate casualties in the Winter War.

The Poles threw you out in the 1920s.

[David Floyd]

They have right to demand everything they want, the government have right to deny their reqests.
If a bunch of crazy communists tomorrow gather in Alaska and will demand an independence of this state from Washington you let them go?

I would, if the State of Alaska votes for secession.

Who told you that I think that Soviet invasion in Finland was Ok?
I've never said this.

You implied that it was OK because of strategic reasons, and because Finland rejected Soviet offers to purchase Finnish property.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
In this day and age, military might is not as important as diplomatic leverage, economic influence, and scientific progress. Thus, I would argue that China's largest army status is not particularly relevant. Whilst they could probably wage a very ferocious defensive war, China's offensive strike capability is undeveloped and furthermore there does not appear to be much effort going towards developing this further (beyond rocket capabilities).

Even with military might toned down to its more modern level, America is still by far the most powerful country. In number two place, Japan possesses a strong economy (by any standards except for its own), an adequate military, and scientific parity with America.

From there onwards, you have a choice between several nations, and can choose between present might or projected future potential.

Of all the developing nations, China is best placed for rapid economic growth and may evolve into a nation that poses an economic counterpoise to America. Chinese technology is still lagging behind those of the southeastern "tiger" nations and China has un uphill battle before it can hope for parity. Of course, it's possible, but will require considerable resources and may need something of an administration small miracle.

While China becomes more of a market driven economy, it has retained its authoritarian political system - an unusual mixture, and one that has drawn political condemnation from the West whilst attracting considerable economic interest. Whether or not this same resistance to political reform will continue into the fourth political generation post-Jiang Zemin remains to be seen... perhaps with a new wave of leaders who have not experienced the early days of the Communist Party, reforms may become ideologically easier to speed.

In any case, the question is a fascinating one and one that I believe requires a new outlook than naked competition. The world today is no longer the colonial frontier of the 1800s, nor is it the bipolar battlefield of the Cold War and late 1900s. Now if one country takes an economic spill, the negative effects could spread to all others and will largely outweigh any potential gain to them. I think it's a mistake to view another country as a rival or competitor, especially in this day and age when any government worth its salt recognizes that it cannot do without the support and intercourse of others.

Maybe in 50 years we'll see a strong Sino-US economic and cultural exchange. For two large countries, it's not a bad way to go.

China has two problems: Communism and Taiwan. Until both are fixed, China will remain a backwater.

Ned

[Bereta_Eder]

David Floyd,
your government has imposed dictatorships to countries whose electorate result the US didn't like.
So allow me to question wether you would give independence to Alaska, or Hawai for that matter

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


China has two problems: Communism and Taiwan. Until both are fixed, China will remain a backwater.

Ned

First -- China's government is really not communist.


Second -- China is certainly not a backwater nation. The United States has acknowledged China's immense importance, and its position in Asia.

This why American leaders kow-tow to China by ignoring their human rights violations --- the other reason, is economic interests.

[David Floyd]

I said *I* would

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The Germans beat the **** out of you in WW1. In WW2, they would have, except for American Lend Lease.

oh sure.

The Japanese won in the Russo-Japanese war.

So what? We've return everything we lost in 1945.

The British and French won the Crimean War.

So what? This victory gave them nothing. Anyhow we kicked their asses after the revolution.

The Finns inflicted hugely disproportionate casualties in the Winter War.

But lost part of their territory.

The Poles threw you out in the 1920s.

1939.

I would, if the State of Alaska votes for secession.

Very good, separatists of Alaska could be pleased by your decision.

You implied that it was OK because of strategic reasons, and because Finland rejected Soviet offers to purchase Finnish property.

I said this to explain the reasons of this war, not to justify this aggression.

[David Floyd]

oh sure.

Chris62 will agree with me. Probably MtG as well. But if you want to start this argument, go ahead.

So what? We've return everything we lost in 1945.

So? You jumped in the war after they were already defeated and their Manchurian defenses were stripped to almost nothing effective.

So what? This victory gave them nothing. Anyhow we kicked their asses after the revolution.

They didn't exactly deploy for a real war.

But lost part of their territory.

Of course, they were heavily outnumbered. My point is the historical shittiness of the Russian/Soviet military.

1939.

95% of their troops were fighting the Germans. Of COURSE you won.

I said this to explain the reasons of this war, not to justify this aggression.

That was the implication I got - my apologies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
Why you didn’t just said nukes against cities?

Because you didn't use nukes against cities.

No one, never used a vacuum bombs against cities in Chechnya.

Liar.

[Ecthy]

Where us Chris now? I just wrote him a PM as in response to the one he sent me, but it seems he has gone of after doing that so he never received my reply. I hope he hasn't done "the click" on me though, although there wouldn't be much of a need for that

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Chris62 will agree with me. Probably MtG as well.

Sure. All of you are Americans. Millions of Russians will disagree with this, so what?

So? You jumped in the war after they were already defeated and their Manchurian defenses were stripped to almost nothing effective.

We've jumped in war because it we have an agreement to do so, agreement signed in Yalta. You are strange people Americans. First you ask to join the war, then you are saying that we are an opportunists.

EDIT: Almost forget to mention. manchurian defences consisted of 900 000 troops of Quantun's army. If 900 000 soldiers is nothing for you, then your efforts in Normandy in 1944 is nothing too.

They didn't exactly deploy for a real war.

At this case Crim was not a war too. For as it was like military campaign, not big real war.

Of course, they were heavily outnumbered. My point is the historical shittiness of the Russian/Soviet military.

Such point is simply do not exist, or exist in hardly damaged heads of shitty kick boxers.

[David Floyd]

Sure. All of you are Americans. Millions of Russians will disagree with this, so what?

Well, Chris62 has a masters in history and MtG is one of the smartest people on Poly - their opinion is much weightier than millions of Russians who have been spoonfed propaganda.

We've jumped in war because it we have an agreement to do so, agreement signed in Yalta. You are strange people Americans. First you ask to join the war, then you are saying that we are an opportunists.

No, what I'm saying was that there was no possible way for you to lose - Japan was already defeated.

At this case Crim was not a war too. For as it was like military campaign, not big real war.

Sure it was - the Brits/French threw you out of the Balkans, then defeated your army multiple times in the Crimea, before taking Sevastopol.

Such point is simply do not exist, or exist in hardly damaged heads of shitty kick boxers.

You have to admit that almost every war Russia has ever won has been either with foreign support or weight of numbers, neither of which lend themselves to the conclusion that Russia's army has been anything other than large. And even that large army lost on many occasions.

[David Floyd]

EDIT: Almost forget to mention. manchurian defences consisted of 900 000 troops of Quantun's army. If 900 000 soldiers is nothing for you, then your efforts in Normandy in 1944 is nothing too.

900,000 under-equipped, under-supplied soldiers with inferior weapons facing a larger Soviet force, with high morale, better equipment, and massive amounts of US supplies and transportation.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, Chris62 has a masters in history and MtG is one of the smartest people on Poly - their opinion is much weightier than millions of Russians who have been spoonfed propagana

How typical American it is to think so. Of course you are super nation, next step in human evolution, supermans.
*throw up*
The opinion of 3 Americans are weithier that millions of other people? You are insane.

You have to admit that almost every war Russia has ever won has been either with foreign support or weight of numbers, neither of which lend themselves to the conclusion that Russia's army has been anything other than large. And even that large army lost on many occasions.

Look who saying this. A citizen of the country, which always gather a wide coalition in their wars against even a 1000 times weaker enemy.

Sure it was - the Brits/French threw you out of the Balkans, then defeated your army multiple times in the Crimea, before taking Sevastopol.

That's why the Sevastopol is the British/French city now?

[David Floyd]

How typical American it is to think so. Of course you are super nation, next step in human evolution, supermans.
*throw up*
The opinion of 3 Americans are weithier that millions of other people? You are insane.

Opinions backed by facts always out weigh opinions backed by propaganda, regardless of numbers.

Look who saying this. A citizen of the country, which always gather a wide coalition in their wars against even a 1000 times weaker enemy.

This shows we know how to win wars without losing hundreds of thousands of men. So what?

That's why the Sevastopol a British/French city now?

So you're saying what? Sevastopol didn't fall, or the Russian Army forced the Brits and French out?
Please

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
900,000 under-equipped, under-supplied soldiers with inferior weapons facing a larger Soviet force, with high morale, better equipment,...

I can say the same about German forces in Normandy.

and massive amounts of US supplies and transportation.

Oh sure,
I guess you beleive that every third tank in Red army was a Sherman, every third pane was Cobra, every third gun was Thompson.

[David Floyd]

I can say the same about German forces in Normandy.

Actually the initial landing force was outnumbered, and I'd say German armor was superior to Allied armor. Their 88s were nothing to sneeze at either.

I guess you beleive that every third tank in Red army was a Sherman, every third pane was Cobra, every third gun was Thompson.

No, although at the time of Operation Typhoon the Soviets had more Western tanks than Soviet tanks on the front.
But the Soviet Union also refused to go after Japan without massive amounts of Lend Lease, a lot of which was logistical-type stuff, including transportation.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Opinions backed by facts always out weigh opinions backed by propaganda, regardless of numbers.

Sure. If those opinions based on real facts, but not on ropaganda too.

This shows we know how to win wars without losing hundreds of thousands of men. So what?

Like Vietnam right?

So you're saying what? Sevastopol didn't fall, or the Russian Army forced the Brits and French out?

I'm saing that it gave them nothing.

[Akka]

"And my d*ck is bigger than yours !"

(argument is enjoyable, but here it starts to looks a little childish from my own subjective point of view)

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The Germans beat the **** out of you in WW1. In WW2, they would have, except for American Lend Lease.

The Japanese won in the Russo-Japanese war.

The British and French won the Crimean War.

The Finns inflicted hugely disproportionate casualties in the Winter War.

The Poles threw you out in the 1920s.

David Floyd, Why didn't you mention Afghanistan? Ned