Russia a "second-rate" power?


#1

Retired General Jack Keane made some very good points just yesterday morning, on FNC: He noted that Russia is “a second-rate military power,” masquerading as a “superpower.”

He concluded, therefore (and I am paraphrasing), that the US should not take into consideration Russia’s likely response (as, for instance, in Syria a few days ago), when we wish to take own military actions.

Thoughts?


#2

I think this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. The left in this country has been poking the bear of Russia since the start of the 2016 election cycle. As we all know their rhetoric got even worse after HRC lost. Now the establishment right is joining in.

Russia is still capable of deploying nuclear weapons. They still do have a powerful military force. They are also a major player in the global energy market. Many Western European countries are completely dependent upon Russia for the majority of their energy needs.

If you were a Russian citizen, how would you feel about all of this negative criticism? I know I would be demanding that my government take action. My concern is that’s exactly what’s going to happen. It’s not necessary. Russia didn’t hack the election. Russia is not attack the United States. This is a very dangerous game that’s being played.


#3

Russia is aligned with Iran and we all know those fanatics need very little urging to blow up the World with nukes because the await those 40 virgins ! Russia claim to have unmanned subs that can carry 10 mega-ton dirty bombs to any port Cities leaving lethal radioactive clouds over a vast areas . And as we see in the useless UN China has align with Russia of late . We are spread so thin around the World and we are in debt mostly to China due to trade imbalances . Don’t be fooled we are not the mighty force we were 25 years ago , like an aging prize fighter we have taken far too many blows to the head !!! :thinking:


#4

The left never had the stomach for a fight and would point fingers the minute the first round was fired , they are simply a sad bag of blowhards .Just look at the actions of the peanut farmer during the Iranian hostage crisis , I remember fata$$ Ted Kennedy saying we should just apologize to the Iranians , f-ing cowards !!!
It would be very wise NOT to poke the bear !!!


#5

[quote=“IronLung, post:2, topic:7913, full:true”]
Russia is still capable of deploying nuclear weapons.[/quote]

The word, “capable,” is a weasel word.

Just how many people actually suppose that Russia would start a nuclear war (even if it were losing a conventional war)?

I simply cannot imagine it…


#6

[quote=“tt53, post:3, topic:7913, full:true”]
Russia is aligned with Iran and we all know those fanatics need very little urging to blow up the World with nukes because the await those 40 virgins ![/quote]

For Iran, that makes some sense (although I think it is actually 70 virgins).

But for Russia?


#7

How is it a weasel word? Either you are capable of something or you aren’t. It’s a description of something that is binary. There is no gray area of capable.

That depends on the position that Russia finds itself in. Just because you can’t imagine something doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

If Russia felt that the use of a nuclear weapons was the only way to protect itself then using one is not out of the realm of possibility. Use may not mean direct use by Russia…it could mean that they could be the state sponsors of nuclear terrorism - like a dirty bomb used by non-state actors - or something like that.


#8

Well Russia has the means to blow up the World many times over . They are not so concerned with seeing those virgins but will encourage Iran they are ready and waiting ! :wink:


#9

No one who has enough nukes to destroy the Earth ten times over can be called second rate.


#10

Russia should just give Syria a nuke like the US gave Israel nukes. That should bring peace to the region.


#11

Russia is a serious threat and no one should be over confident. They’re a threat not only to the U.S. but wherever they.interfere .
Yes, they should have given Syria a nuke, but one that would turn the sand into glass.


#12

Your only sentient point, above, is that Russia might be a “sponsor of nuclear terrorism”–perhaps through “a dirty bomb used by non-state actors.”

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are really the only “non-state actors” opposed to the US (and the West in general) that I can think of.

If either of these were to be strongly suspected of using a “dirty bomb” against us, we should hunt the group down–and then utterly destroy it…