Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Smitty-48]

And how is all this better than the Americans again?

Pretty sure the Americans would have made short work of Chechnya, and easily could have installed a Kadyrov after.

The US Coast Guard could have taken Georgia, with a little air support from the Navy.

And as for Crimea? Yeah, pretty sure the Americans could have pulled that one off.

The American public would hardly have to get wrapped around the axle about blamming those taskings off, would they even have noticed?

That's pretty small beer by American standards.

[Hastur]

They had a free hand in the Cold War, pretty sure they lost, how'd the restrained Americans do?

Who won the Second World War? The Russians, or the Americans?

How'd the Russians do in the First World War? Whoops, that didn't go so well.

What are these wars the Russians were supposedly so great at fighting? Name one where they came out on top strategically?

I'm talking about the current Russians. Thinking of actions like Chechnia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea.

Chechnya they got their asses totally handed to them, and then they basically bribed some Chechens to run the place for them, I don't actually buy that the Russians are in charge there frankly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia was actually kind of a fiasco, and in Crimea they faced no resistance, so not exactly Bonaparte n' shit up in here.

You're probably right. I'm probably just giving in to my inherent Russophobia. Why can't they just get rich fat and lazy like the rest of us?

[Hastur]

This is a couple of years old but I don't think the picture has changed much. What's to worry about? Except for the nukes of course.

[Smitty-48]

I'm talking about the current Russians. Thinking of actions like Chechnia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea.

Chechnya they got their asses totally handed to them, and then they basically bribed some Chechens to run the place for them, I don't actually buy that the Russians are in charge there frankly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia was actually kind of a fiasco, and in Crimea they faced no resistance, so not exactly Bonaparte n' shit up in here.

You're probably right. I'm probably just giving in to my inherent Russophobia. Why can't they just get rich fat and lazy like the rest of us?

The Americans appear more dangerous when you live right next them perhaps, and have been invaded by them twice.

[Smitty-48]

Honestly tho, all the Americans really care about is Americans, they don't give a rats ass about foreigners, and that's no different than the Russians, and thing is, I actually think the Americans are more willing to suffer greater casualties for longer than the Russians are, one of the biggest things keeping Putin in check, is that he can't actually afford for many body bags to be coming home, and certainly nothing even close to the 58,000 the Americans soaked up in Vietnam before calling it quits.

Could the Kremlin sustain support for something like the Iraq War and Afghanistan at the same time? What was that, 5,000 killed, 45,000 wounded?

[Hastur]

How many did they loose in Afghanistan? I remember mothers protesting the war during the Soviet era. That had to take some balls.

[Smitty-48]

How many did they loose in Afghanistan? I remember mothers protesting the war during the Soviet era. That had to take some balls.

15,000 killed, 35,000 wounded.

Again, the Americans in Vietnam; 58,000 killed, 304,000 wounded.

[Smitty-48]

And in terms of "doing whatever it takes" on the dishing it out side of things, about the same; 2 million Afghan civilians killed in the Soviet Afghan War, 2.2 million Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War.

And in terms of firepower employed, wasn't even close, the Americans all the way, the Soviet bombardment in Afghanistan wasn't in the class of an Operation Rolling Thunder nor anything like that. The Soviet Air Force was a mickey mouse operation compared to the Americans.

[ssu]

The main reason the Russians would not attack Finland, is that there's nothing in Finland worth attacking. It's not a threat to them, and it's a frozen wasteland full of trees and not much else, which the Russians already have more than enough of. The cost of Russia attacking an EU member state would be enormous, just in political, economic and financial terms, and there's simply nothing in Finland worth paying that cost to the Russians.

The only reason why Russia is interested in Finland is simply geography. It's basically controlling the airspace of Finland nowdays.

Hence what they would want is simple and has been shown: to have their Air Defence missile cover positioned in Finland. Finland (or the Baltic States) have allways been an issue of defence in depth for Russia. Basically this threat has been there since the Crimean war, when the Franco-British Fleet sailed to the Gulf of Finland and threatened the Capitol. The allied force didn't attack Kronstadt, but they did make landings in the Åland islands. This made the Russians keep quite a lot of forces in defence of their Capital, because the Åland islands are a lot more closer than Crimea to the heartland of Russia.

In 1912 the Tzar approved the building of Peter the Great's Naval Fortress, a naval fortress line on both shores of the Gulf of Finland to protect the Capital. When Finland (and Estonia) got their independence, the small countries inherited this strategic maritime defence line that either country otherwise wouldn't have afforded to build.

Now in the age of airplanes and missiles, the cordon has just transformed to a layer of Air Defence and ABM defences. Now an MLRS with an ATACMS missile could be fired to St. Petersburg from the backyard of my summerplace.

The equation is simple cost benefit, which implies to all Russia's neighbours.

If Finland wouldn't have an army, Russia surely would provide it for us, no matter how friendly we would be. Now it's simply a too much of a cost to occupy Finland (and attack an EU member state etc.) for the benefit of better defence. With Ukraine on it's knees, the benefit of attacking the country and annexing parts of it was in Putin's view bigger than the costs of war and worse relations with the West. Had Ukraine had a better army and especially a nuclear deterrence, it would have never happened.

[ssu]

And in terms of "doing whatever it takes" on the dishing it out side of things, about the same; 2 million Afghan civilians killed in the Soviet Afghan War, 2.2 million Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War.

And in terms of firepower employed, wasn't even close, the Americans all the way, the Soviet bombardment in Afghanistan wasn't in the class of an Operation Rolling Thunder nor anything like that. The Soviet Air Force was a mickey mouse operation compared to the Americans.

What is noteworthy here is to look at the war the US now has fought. The civilian deaths are very likely less than 50 000.

The Soviets copied some tactics from the Romans, like making an artificial desert. Without local population to give support, an area could be "pacified" and have no insurgents around. Hence the huge diaspora of Afghans living in Iran (perhaps 2,5 million) and Pakistan (1,3 to 1,7 million).