Russia to conduct military drill involving 40 million people and to modernise nuclear arsenal

Read: Russia warns nuclear war with West is imminent

That article doesn't seem very unbiased, however the facts are correct. The headline is just goofy. Snopes raised some good points, though they did not discount the possibility that the drill is in anticipation of nuclear warfare: 40 Million Russians in Drills for Possible Nuclear Strike

A more unbiased take: Russians prepare for disaster amid low-point in relations

From the above article:

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled out of a key agreement with the US on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.

More on the agreement from a credible source: Russia suspends nuclear agreement, ends uranium research pact with United States

All this after it was discovered that Russia shot down the Malaysia flight that went missing in 2014 and deteriorating relations with the West over its conduct in Ukraine and Syria.

Unsure of the credibility of the following article but it's also a relevant read: Russia Preparing For War: Putin Moves Nukes To US Border & Mediterranean Sea

This won't amount to anything like World War 3. Nobody in the world wants to fight that battle. What we could expect, however, is Cold War 2.

Thoughts?

 

[tMoon]

Neither the U.S. or Russia will ever completely disarm themselves, it would be moronic to do so and many researchers would argue that disarmament of countries could actually lead to instability. This is in part due to ensured mutual destruction effectively disappearing, but if nuclear weapons were fully disarmed and a conflict were to arise again, you could rely on countries once again fighting for the nuclear power. First to get it, first to win.

If nuclear warfare resurfaces, it is not going to be the kind that is meant to wipe capitals off the map. Nuclear weapons have gotten significantly more powerful, but this entire idea of modernizing nuclear arms relates to strategic and pin-point targeting. Even so, I would not count on a nuclear power using nuclear weapons against one-another or nuclear weapons being used in general due to the international ramifications it would have. If North Korea were to use nuclear weapons, you would bet Kim Jung Un would be over-thrown in a matter of days.

Anyway, on topic:

I think (most of) the articles are trash, the moving of bombers and ships is a show of force and drills are a show of force, the plutonium pull-out is a power play, and nuclear war is not imminent.

It is also worth mentioning that Russia is NOT a superpower. The global system is currently unipolar and the collapse of the USSR set the stage for the United States to be the sole superpower. Russia may be a hegemonic power, but Russia does not even come close to matching the U.S. in power projection, military, or fiscal might.

 

Neither the U.S. or Russia will ever completely disarm themselves, it would be moronic to do so and many researchers would argue that disarmament of countries could actually lead to instability. This is in part due to ensured mutual destruction effectively disappearing, but if nuclear weapons were fully disarmed and a conflict were to arise again, you could rely on countries once again fighting for the nuclear power. First to get it, first to win.

If nuclear warfare resurfaces, it is not going to be the kind that is meant to wipe capitals off the map. Nuclear weapons have gotten significantly more powerful, but this entire idea of modernizing nuclear arms relates to strategic and pin-point targeting. Even so, I would not count on a nuclear power using nuclear weapons against one-another or nuclear weapons being used in general due to the international ramifications it would have. If North Korea were to use nuclear weapons, you would bet Kim Jung Un would be over-thrown in a matter of days.

Anyway, on topic:

I think (most of) the articles are trash, the moving of bombers and ships is a show of force and drills are a show of force, the plutonium pull-out is a power play, and nuclear war is not imminent.

It is also worth mentioning that Russia is NOT a superpower. The global system is currently unipolar and the collapse of the USSR set the stage for the United States to be the sole superpower. Russia may be a hegemonic power, but Russia does not even come close to matching the U.S. in power projection, military, or fiscal might.

Agreed on all points.
Though the hypothesis is highly unlikely, in the event of a war between Russia and the States, China may decide to hop into the fray. That would be problematic. The two together would pose a very real threat.

Just to touch on the North Korea bit though, Pyongyang is unlikely to have international targets. Its best strategic defense would be to use their weapons against their own population. If SK or the US decided to march on Pyongyang, NK would just have to hold a gun to its head to start treaty negotiations. Kim would not likely be overthrown as a result but may be faced with other drastic treaty conditions.

 

[tMoon]

Agreed on all points.
Though the hypothesis is highly unlikely, in the event of a war between Russia and the States, China may decide to hop into the fray. That would be problematic. The two together would pose a very real threat.

A real threat, yes, but not an existential one. Throwing around two large hegemonic powers makes them sound much more powerful than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, China & Russia together pose a problem to U.S. policy (i.e. look at the UNSC and Russia and China's opposition), but neither get remotely close to matching the U.S. military. China has the ability to mass millions-and-millions of troops, but their technology and abilities are utterly outpaced.

There are 8 aircraft carriers in the world. 7 of them are the U.S., 1 of them is China's.

Russia may have the ability to project power out of its sphere (i.e. Syria), but there is a reason China is so focused on the South China Sea. China does not have the ability to attempt to control anything outside of the geographical location of China and they are mirroring the U.S. in the 19th and 20th century (in regards to Latin America). Now, China and/or Russia may become Super Powers in the future, but for now, they are hegemonic powers that still do not compare to the U.S. in military might; furthermore, even China's economic might as staggered and it not a fraction of the U.S. GDP/Capita.

It's also worth noting the U.S. has a larger military budget than the next 8 largest countries combined and all of this includes no participation of NATO whose entire basis is all protects one.

Just to touch on the North Korea bit though, Pyongyang is unlikely to have international targets. Its best strategic defense would be to use their weapons against their own population. If SK or the US decided to march on Pyongyang, NK would just have to hold a gun to its head to start treaty negotiations. Kim would not likely be overthrown as a result but may be faced with other drastic treaty conditions.

Pyongyang's targets lie within its region (aka Japan and S.K.) and while they may wish to have targets such as the U.S., they do not yet have the ability to reach the U.S. (or the ability is limited to the west-coast, individuals disagree on their ability).

SK will not do anything without U.S. approval. All the U.S. has to do is threaten to pull-out and they did exactly that when SK was like "we're going to develop nuclear weapons" and the U.S. responded with "umm.. no you're not."

I don't think your gun-to-the-head strategy is all that plausible considering NK has an estimated 4-8 nuclear weapons. It is not all that hard to imagine a strategic strike taking out NK leadership and the few nuclear weapons they do have.

 

[Racks on Racks]

Russia reacting to American imperialism. Putin is an intellectual man.

 

There's been talk in Germany of reintroducing conscription

Germany considers return of conscription for civil defence - BBC News

If Clinton is going to win by fraud or otherwise it might be time to start keeping track of the ramp up toward ww3 again

 

There's been talk in Germany of reintroducing conscription

Germany considers return of conscription for civil defence - BBC News

If Clinton is going to win by fraud or otherwise it might be time to start keeping track of the ramp up toward ww3 again

Probably a good idea for the Germans tbh. Like the article says, conflict is unlikely, but things a little unstable in Europe right now. It would be wise to come up with a plan B.

Elaborate on the Clinton thing? Why would she increase the likelihood of war? Trump is butt buddies with Putin for now, but the guy is so wishy washy and backtracks on everything he says to the point that even that relationship can't be banked on. He'd be just as likely to start shit with Russia than Clinton.

 

Probably a good idea for the Germans tbh. Like the article says, conflict is unlikely, but things a little unstable in Europe right now. It would be wise to come up with a plan B.

Elaborate on the Clinton thing? Why would she increase the likelihood of war? Trump is butt buddies with Putin for now, but the guy is so wishy washy and backtracks on everything he says to the point that even that relationship can't be banked on. He'd be just as likely to start shit with Russia than Clinton.

Clintons stated policy of Syrian no fly zone will lead to war with Russia

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

Russia is a modern country with lots of potential to grow and actually become a positive force to be reckoned with in the world politics theater. I've met Russian citizens and Russian descendants and they've always impressed me positively for the most part.
Sadly the problem with Russia is that it is run by petty bullies and power / ego obsessed leaders. Putin's main objective is to have his name in the history books as the last conqueror. He cares about his legacy only, and not about bettering the world.

 

Russia is a modern country with lots of potential to grow and actually become a positive force to be reckoned with in the world politics theater. I've met Russian citizens and Russian descendants and they've always impressed me positively for the most part.
Sadly the problem with Russia is that it is run by petty bullies and power / ego obsessed leaders. Putin's main objective is to have his name in the history books as the last conqueror. He cares about his legacy only, and not about bettering the world.

This is a fiction spun by the western media. Russia's actions are largely defensive. Whenever the US wants to provoke them they pay the media to spin it and say that Russia attacked first.

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

Yeah Russia invaded Crimea defensively.

 

Yeah Russia invaded Crimea defensively.

You mean the people of Crimea had a referendum and chose to join Russia and the Ukrainian government tried to use force to stop them?

Imagine if Alaska voted to join Canada and the US military used force to stop them.

Crimeans vote on Russia referendum

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

You mean the same referedum that was held after most of Crimea had already been occupied by Russia...?
I wouldn't call it the most legitimate one ever.
Both the United Nations Security Council and later a Geral Assembly voted the referedum invalid, by large margins. The former by 13 votes for invalid, with China abstaining and the obvious Russia vetoing it. The latter with 100+ votes for invalid, 11 for valid and 50 or so abstentions.
The referendum itself is sketchy as heck taking into account the situation in the area at the time, with 97% voting in favour of joining Russia with an 87% voter attendance, when in a normal situation it would've never exceeded 40 or 50% attendance and this during a time of peace and not civil war where most people were too frightened to properly takes sides in such volatile area. Surely it had nothing to do with the Russian occupation.

 

You mean the same referedum that was held after most of Crimea had already been occupied by Russia...?
I wouldn't call it the most legitimate one ever.
Both the United Nations Security Council and later a Geral Assembly voted the referedum invalid, by large margins. The former by 13 votes for invalid, with China abstaining and the obvious Russia vetoing it. The latter with 100+ votes for invalid, 11 for valid and 50 or so abstentions.

It's very hard to hold territory against the will of the people who live there, especially when they can just move.

The referendum itself is sketchy as heck taking into account the situation in the area at the time, with 97% voting in favour of joining Russia with an 87% voter attendance, when in a normal situation it would've never exceeded 40 or 50% attendance and this during a time of peace and not civil war where most people were too frightened to properly takes sides in such volatile area. Surely it had nothing to do with the Russian occupation.

Perhaps you don't grasp the context of the borders here. The soviet union dissolved in 1991 and effectively 'nominal' state borders became actual country borders. This would be like for example the border between texas and new mexico suddenly taking on the same status as the border between texas and mexico.

Maybe then you can understand why if you had family over the border you might be a little pissed off about your access being cut by a bunch of military bullshit.

If this happened to you and everyone you knew I think you'd turn out in 80% numbers for a referendum too. Just saying.

Crimean status referendum, 2014 - Wikipedia
Crimea parliament declares independence from Ukraine ahead of referendum

If you read what actually happened: They first seceded and formed their own country. And then they ceded their territory to the Russian federation by referendum. If they were actually under siege by Russia they could have asked for international assistance after becoming sovereign.

Further, if you read about the region, it was historically part of Russia and then was transfered to Ukraine by soviet fiat. Hardly surprising then that after the soviet union fell they wanted to rejoin Russia.
Autonomous Republic of Crimea - Wikipedia

On balance of evidence I would say the referendum was legit. No one questioned the validity of a similar referendum in the falklands with a similar turnout.
Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 - Wikipedia

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

I know as a fact it was given to Ukraine as part of a deal a long time, one if I'm not mistaken Russia signed and together with the USA swore to protect the national integrity of Ukraine. So much for keeping their word.
These numbers would've never showed up to a referedum in an area torn by civil war, the grand majority would be too terrified to put themselves and their families at risk by so openly displaying their allegiance. This is war we're talking about, not a movie nor a game about freedom where these amazing and irrealistic things happen.
If we're going by historical sources, Crimea wasn't even Russian to begin with since it belonged to the Crimean Tatars, who aren't even of Russian ethnicity but Turkish. It also belonged to Vandal Goths for a long time. Using history to defend such point means very little when most territories changed hands so much it's not even funny.
It's like saying Portugal has claims in a large part of Spain because said territory is historically part of Lusitânia.
The difference with the Falklands referendum is quite simple. They're islands colonized by the British and the only claims Argentina have over them are due to proximity. The islands aren't under occupation nor war-thorn.

 

I know as a fact it was given to Ukraine as part of a deal a long time, one if I'm not mistaken Russia signed and together with the USA swore to protect the national integrity of Ukraine. So much for keeping their word.
These numbers would've never showed up to a referedum in an area torn by civil war, the grand majority would be too terrified to put themselves and their families at risk by so openly displaying their allegiance. This is war we're talking about, not a movie nor a game about freedom where these amazing and irrealistic things happen.
If we're going by historical sources, Crimea wasn't even Russian to begin with since it belonged to the Crimean Tatars, who aren't even of Russian ethnicity but Turkish. It also belonged to Vandal Goths for a long time. Using history to defend such point means very little when most territories changed hands so much it's not even funny.
It's like saying Portugal has claims in a large part of Spain because said territory is historically part of Lusitânia.

And yet they've shown up in other referendums like the falklands.

I bet I can find some more.
Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 - Wikipedia
99.8% yes vote, 91.94% turnout
Not in question

South Sudanese independence referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia
98.83% yes vote, 97.58% turnout
Not in question

East Timorese independence referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia
78.5% no vote, 98.6% turnout

Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2008 - Wikipedia
93.82% yes vote, 98.12% turnout.

Could it be that when it actually matters which government you're under, people all go vote? I bet there are dozens if not hundreds more.

Again on the balance of evidence I see no reason not to believe the referendum.

IN FACT we have evidence of the types of turnout fromn the very same region in 1991:
Crimean sovereignty referendum, 1991 - Wikipedia
94.3% yes vote, 81.5% turnout

So yeah basically the only evidence for this being an act of Russian aggression is gone

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

As stated before, these referedums were not held during civil war times in war torn regions held by the governments trying to sway the votes.
Using Myanmar and Sudan to strengthen your argument is hardly viable, as I'm sure you can certain agree. They're not exactly countries know for being corruptless or having humanitarian values.

 

As stated before, these referendums were not held during civil war times in war torn regions held by the governments trying to sway the votes.

So no one is allowed to have a referendum if there is a conflict in the region?

You fail to address the fact that the 1991 Crimea referendum which is not in dispute had turnout numbers exactly like the 2014 referendum. Given the historical allegiance to Russia and the historical evidence of similar turnout and voting patterns, there again is no reason to doubt the validity of the referendum result... except to push the narrative that Russia is an expansionist power.

A narrative the western media is very very keen on pushing.

Casualties and losses
1 Crimean SDF trooper killed[24]
2 soldiers killed,[25]

60–80 detained[26]
3 protesters died (2 pro-Russian and 1 pro-Ukrainian)[27][28][29][30]
All deaths were not related directly to military activities

^ your "civil war" consists of a grand total of 6 deaths out of a population of 2.2 million.

 

[HeyCaptainJack]

I mean these are hardly objective we there are powers pushing their own agenda in said areas. I'm not saying they're exclusive to Russia, but usually the people have a tendency to "vote" in support of the people terrorizing them if that benefits the agenda of the powers in there.
I'm flat out pointing out most of these numbers are made up by the powers pulling the strings in case I'm not being obvious enough.
I by no means claim it to be something excuse of Russia, but they do cross that line far too often.
Unlike what you might believe though nobody here cares about Russia more than we care about the USA. The whole "the western media is against us point" is kind of silly when we far often paint the USA and others as countries far from flawless as well.

 

I mean these are hardly objective we there are powers pushing their own agenda in said areas. I'm not saying they're exclusive to Russia, but usually the people have a tendency to "vote" in support of the people terrorizing them if that benefits the agenda of the powers in there.
I'm flat out pointing out most of these numbers are made up by the powers pulling the strings in case I'm not being obvious enough.
I by no means claim it to be something excuse of Russia, but they do cross that line far too often.
Unlike what you might believe though nobody here cares about Russia more than we care about the USA. The whole "the western media is against us point" is kind of silly when we far often paint the USA and others as countries far from flawless as well.

ok so then you'd agree that this cannot be allowed
Iraqi constitutional referendum, 2005 - Wikipedia

and by your standard it would actually be impossible to hold any referendum in Iraq until all fighting has completely ceased, in other words they can never have one.

Look Crimea had a 6 person causality rate from this "civil war". Their autonomous army defected to Russia. This was not an invasion, it was a total defection and accession. They're not uncommon in history and they always have these traits:
1. Almost no one dies.
2. The military defect.
3. Almost no one actually inside the region contests the results.

If tomorrow North Korea opened its borders, let South Korean troops in, the northern military defected, and the north held a referendum to rejoin the south, we would not call this an invasion. We would call this progress.

Unravel the propaganda