Putin has more options because:

1. He controls much of Europe's access to oil.
2. The US forces do not have force potential because they are entangled in two countries.
3. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

The fact is is that Russia is in a position where challenging it would be costly. If Europe challenged it, their oil prices would skyrocket. If the US decided to challenge it, well they are entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan and then there's the fact of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Russia is now a great oil producing country, and oil prices could rise if its economy were damaged. And that is also why the Europeans want nothing to do with anything real done against Russia.

Please, they can't reach us with their army and we don't need a million men to put Russia back in the poorhouse.

As for the nukes, let them use them.  We launch ours as soon as we see them coming.  So nothing to worry about.

Yell, are you retarded?

Stop playing C&C, go outside and smell the roses. It's cool.

Our cruise missles have a range of 960 km, that means whatever is 960km from the ocean in Russia is vulnerable to attack by our subs.  Russia does NOT have corresponding bombardment capability on the USA.  Any land forces Russia puts outside Russia are themselves targets.  If we start a war with Russia and Russia loses 10,000 men in a week, even Russia can't keep up that pace.  And that's not beyond our capability.  Putin, like Hitler, is presenting a nice front of cheap easy victory and can't become the first Russian president to lose a war.

As to the "gamble" of nuclear war...you're in it right now.  Always have been.  Just remembering it for the first time?

Actually, the US is being a bully by extending its political presence at the expense of Russia. Yes we can destroy their military rather easily, but a war with Russia would come at a nuclear gamble and cause oil prices to rise. If we took their oil wells, well then that would extend our forces even more and be a political disaster.

Yell: Not a gamble like actually invading Russia. Back them against the wall, and they may retaliate knowing they're screwed anyway.

The US can't afford to alienate the entire world without severe economic consequences.

A far cheaper solution is to stop being aggressive with Russia, let them keep their political influence in Eastern Europe, and cooperate with the emerging economic powers in the world.

Disrupting the balance of power Wilhelm II style lacks any strategic intelligence whatsoever. It's STUPID.

> ☠ARFeh☠ wrote:

> Sorry to drag the Iraq War into this, but if the US is so amazing and could allegedly devastate a superpower, why can't it subdue a bunch of religious lunatics with AK47s and RPGs?

Because one goal is to minimize civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. This reduces a lot of our military advantages. We still have the advantage, but less of one. It also limits our options with respect to taking down enemy units.

oh I heard the words of Appeasement.

You know, where Stalin was handed all of East Europe and if not for the US then there would have been no west Europe either, just the next extension of Stalins empire, which is on record as the SECOND LARGEST MURDERER IN HISTORY. HE KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THOSE NUMBERS.

Yeah I guess we should have tossed him all of Europe to appease him, how dare we do the Berlin Airlift, or threaten war if he tried to grab any nations! Appeasing ANY dictator is just going to make him reach for more. You kill them dead, and they stop reaching. You spank them hard, they stop reaching... you kill all their underlings and they stop reaching. Anything else is a disaster.

> Einstein wrote:

> oh I heard the words of Appeasement.

You know, where Stalin was handed all of East Europe and if not for the US then there would have been no west Europe either, just the next extension of Stalins empire, which is on record as the SECOND LARGEST MURDERER IN HISTORY. HE KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THOSE NUMBERS.

Yeah I guess we should have tossed him all of Europe to appease him, how dare we do the Berlin Airlift, or threaten war if he tried to grab any nations! Appeasing ANY dictator is just going to make him reach for more. You kill them dead, and they stop reaching. You spank them hard, they stop reaching... you kill all their underlings and they stop reaching. Anything else is a disaster.>>

If you're referring to me, I never said anything about appeasement. I said balance of power. In Eastern Europe, we are seeing Bush acting aggressive, reducing Russian political influence, and disrupting the balance of power.

Alan,

They seem to have been backed in a corner and forced to commit themselves to some moral and ideological principles, at the expense of pragmatic considerations.

Happens all the time with neo-cons.

Sometimes I wonder who is more dangerous. The ruthless, strategic-minded conservatives like me who are committed only to power and power principles, or the neo-cons.

> esa wrote:

> Yeah,and the post modernists.they are even more dangerous.

Yes, they are idiots. And I FEEL they should be exterminated. But my raging distaste for them has nothing to do with pragmatic politics.

> Alan Statham wrote:

> Your distaste for post modernism is silly though! I don't like religion, but I don't think all religious people should be exterminated.

Besides, post-modernism can be productive, look at Fairclough!>>

Pffft. It's still more so destructive.

Justinian:
"Yell: Not a gamble like actually invading Russia. Back them against the wall, and they may retaliate knowing they're screwed anyway."
A full scale invasion of russia almost certainly would cause nuclear tension so not a serious option. Russia on the other hand, want desperatly to avoid to back the western world into a corner, wich would have been the case in this war if georgia joins the nato. Germany and france knew this. Their leaders want to avoid ellectoral catastrpohie.

Less oil imput would be a far better scenario as any other. Oil/gas can be used far more effectively still. Also remember russia got its food import paid by these revenues. His fame is build on good economic results. Starvation or even economic fallback would lead to riots.

"a far cheaper solution is to stop being aggressive with Russia, let them keep their political influence in Eastern Europe, and cooperate with the emerging economic powers in the world."
What would happen then, is that russia gets stronger by the day and even more dangerous. It would be fairly stupid to allow that in any POV, doesn't matter if its ideology or power play. I can't even believe you posted it unless you have a crazy plan to go to russia and become a leader there.