What's new

USA general threaten to destroy Russia

This is a made up 'point'. Like it or not, the US military have a greater institutional store of warfare and combat knowledge than Russia.

No it is not. US will not be able to get out of a war with Russia safe and sound, no matter how much sabre rattling you go around with.

Actually...History shown that small countries often have foolish leaders who overestimated themselves and ended up beaten.

No. US supported a maniac called Saddam Hussein when it suited its interests, but when he became useless attacked Iraq and overthrew him. US also attacked Afghanistan which was already a mess. Not to forget the US mess in Libya whose repercussions are still visible to this very day.

As I said, history has shown US can and will not ever take on more powerful countries militarily. What it's good at is invading already poor and war ravaged countries. It has been the case in past 60 years. And even those countries gave US a bloody nose, with Vietnam being the best example, humiliating US in front of the world.
 
I'm afraid but China cannot stay out of it. Just have a look at South China sea. Russia is not alone.
Also American people are really angry of USA's war-machine. They will not send their kids to fight an anti-terror country like Russia. The same in EU. Europeans people are also are on Russian side. Believe it or not Russia has pushed USA-Israel on the wall. Whole the free world including nations worldwide will stand with Russia.:victory:
 
Lol..

You are the one trying too hard. Maximus warrior is correct to point out between warmongering uncivilized behaviour of a acting US 4 star general talking like a thug. While you try to slander and smear Chinese ministry of defence civilise and responsible comment .

What is wrong with Chinese ministry of defence calling for safe guarding national territories and prepare for war? Did he even mention about butcher the enemy and trying to act like gang land mobster?

"The US military, despite all our challenges, will stop you, and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before

“We will destroy any enemy, anywhere, any time.”


I do know your agenda and your poor level of English interpretation that cannot differential between civilise called for defending of land vs criminal barabarian invasion of beating up of others. It will not work. Maybe next time Dutch defence minster called for defending of own homeland and ask all dutch citizen to prepare. It can be consider barbaric and uncivilized. Of cos Penguin will set one standard for others and another standard for others.

Try harder :enjoy:
blablabla

Especially your latter paragraph shows you have nothing to offer in this area of discussion, except - maybe - a lot of hot air.

you know jacques kaka.

Nationalists of all stripes are easily agitated. Both Chinese and US.:coffee:
Yep, I would tend to agree with that.
 
So German forces committed to the European front were relatively inferior? Really?

Death toll is never a measure of success or combat efficacy in the battlefield. Much of that death toll includes civilians and conscripts, and miscalculations in tactics were also a contributing factor.

American losses were relatively much lower because they fought on their terms (they could dictate when and where to fight) and they were in a much better position to exploit weaknesses of the Third Reich than USSR. They bombarded German positions, supply lines, cities and Industrial complexes from the air with impunity, from great distances. On the ground, they pushed hard and fast enough to prevent German lines from regrouping and mounting a counter-offensive in an effective manner. Germans, by that time, had lost much of its naval and air power, and could not negate American advantages in these areas.

Recommended:

https://kansaspress.ku.edu/subjects/history-world-war-ii/978-0-7006-2209-2.html

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/allied-air-power-was-decisive-factor-in-western-europe.htm


There is a hell of a difference between the capabilities of the Third Reich in 1940s and American War-Machine in the 21st century.
For the Russians I agree there are civilians in those numbers, but Germany lost much of its best men fighting Russia, One million from the cold and another million in fights, 2 million not including the German civilians, this was only the German Russian campaign.. in Russia..I still believe that the US couldn't win that war without those German losses on the Eastern front.. you are ..of course.. free to believe what you want..
 
No it is not. US will not be able to get out of a war with Russia safe and sound, no matter how much sabre rattling you go around with.



No. US supported a maniac called Saddam Hussein when it suited its interests, but when he became useless attacked Iraq and overthrew him. US also attacked Afghanistan which was already a mess. Not to forget the US mess in Libya whose repercussions are still visible to this very day.

As I said, history has shown US can and will not ever take on more powerful countries militarily. What it's good at is invading already poor and war ravaged countries. It has been the case in past 60 years. And even those countries gave US a bloody nose, with Vietnam being the best example, humiliating US in front of the world.
Whatever you said to try to cast the US as somehow weak and cowardly, we see and can say the same about the Soviets and China. Your criticism is essentially a failure to provide a credible analysis of the US military in particular and lack of understanding of military capabilities in general.

You ever seen the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman intro scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket ? Look it up. That is how a military -- any military -- is supposed to be: Tough and accept no substitute.

General Milley is a soldier first, politician a far <=============================================> second.

Milley was not 'warmongering' as some tried to make his language out to be. To be a 'warmonger' is to speak of war as the FIRST instrument of state policy. A civilian can be a warmonger, like how many of your country's religious leaders are. Milley talked tough and that was it. As the highest ranking member of a branch of service in a country that have multiple specialties (ground, sea, and air), how do people expect him to talk ? Meekly ? In addressing sensitive civilians, of course Milley has to moderate his language, but NEVER HIS ATTITUDE, which is reflected in those moderated words.

As far as the Russian military is concerned, I and no Americans ever said anything remotely like what you tried to portrayed us: getting out of that fight 'safe and sound'.

Why is it that people ALWAYS hold US against the perfection standard is beyond us Americans on this forum. :rolleyes:

No, we will not leave that hypothetical fight 'safe and sound', but I share the same sentiment as Generally Milley, that we WILL beat the Russian military in all areas of specialties: ground, sea, and air.

Milley is Army, I am Air Force.

Speaking as an Air Force veteran on two jets, F-111 ( Cold War ) and F-16 ( Desert Storm ), I am %100 confidence that US air power, in totality, will decimate the Russian Air Force to the same degree as we did the Iraqi Air Force. Not as quickly, but in any contested airspace, US air power will prevail, be it Russian or Chinese.

- Air Dominance: The ability of an air force to compel other air forces into re-arraying themselves into subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority: The ability of an air force to achieve effective control of any contested air space, repeatedly if necessary, and if there are any losses, those losses will not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

- Air Supremacy: He flies, he dies. Simple as that.

Did that made me a 'warmonger' ?

Let me explain Air Superiority since that tends to be the most confusing idea.

Air Superiority is about making the other guy less and less effective in challenging you in traversing contested airspace at any time. It does not mean he cannot be in that contested airspace. It means we can fight, but at the end, I will be able to transport our troops and assorted logistics without considering the other guy -- WHATSOEVER. It means that if one general told another general that X number of rocket launchers will be at so-and-so location at so-and-so time, the Air Force will and can guarantee that delivery even going thru contested airspace.

No other air force can walk that talk, pal.

Again...Did that made me a 'warmonger' ?

No, it mean that as a veteran of the US military, I am THAT confident of our Air Force to win and my confidence is based upon actual service of considerable time. Like General Milley, we are not 'warmongers' but we have no problems letting potential adversaries know our minds, even with moderated language as to not hurt your sensitive feelings. :sad:
 
Last edited:
For the Russians I agree there are civilians in those numbers, but Germany lost much of its best men fighting Russia, One million from the cold and another million in fights, 2 million not including the German civilians, this was only the German Russian campaign.. in Russia..I still believe that the US couldn't win that war without those German losses on the Eastern front.. you are ..of course.. free to believe what you want..
US had committed a large number of its assets to the Pacific region front during WW-II. Due to this factor, their was a limit to how many troops and assets US could commit to the European front. Nonetheless, D-Day was a very impressive operation.

As far as losses are concerned; perhaps, Americans were not willing to loose millions on the ground like that. However, Americans wouldn't have fought in the same manner in the first place. Their strategy was to erode the will of an enemy state to fight by destroying its cities, industrial capability and military capability; a strategy in which a powerful Navy and Airforce would play a key role.

Even if Operation Barbarossa had not happened, I am not sure how long Germany could hold out. Americans were willing to use even nuclear weapons to win the war back then.
 
Last edited:
US had committed a large number of its assets to the Pacific region front during WW-II. Due to this factor, their was a limit to how many troops and assets US could commit to the European front. Nonetheless, D-Day was a very impressive operation.

As far as losses are concerned; perhaps, Americans were not willing to loose millions on the ground like that. However, Americans wouldn't have fought in the same manner in the first place. Their strategy was to erode the will of an enemy state to fight by destroying its cities, industrial capability and military capability; a strategy in which a powerful Navy and Airforce would play a key role.

Even if Operation Barbarossa had not happened, I am not sure how long Germany could hold out. Americans were willing to use even nuclear weapons to win the war back then.
I agree on some parts..still, the Germans were the first ones to test crude nuclear weapons (you can find facts and pictures on the net..google Peneemud also)..If no German troops, weapons and resources were dedicated to the Eastern front, I doubt the US could have found any bases in Europe from which to launch any Areal attacks, and on the ground like you just said, the US would not commit millions of lives to free Europe..

Whatever you said to try to cast the US as somehow weak and cowardly, we see and can say the same about the Soviets and China. Your criticism is essentially a failure to provide a credible analysis of the US military in particular and lack of understanding of military capabilities in general.

You ever seen the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman intro scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket ? Look it up. That is how a military -- any military -- is supposed to be: Tough and accept no substitute.

General Milley is a soldier first, politician a far <=============================================> second.

Milley was not 'warmongering' as some tried to make his language out to be. To be a 'warmonger' is to speak of war as the FIRST instrument of state policy. A civilian can be a warmonger, like how many of your country's religious leaders are. Milley talked tough and that was it. As the highest ranking member of a branch of service in a country that have multiple specialties (ground, sea, and air), how do people expect him to talk ? Meekly ? In addressing sensitive civilians, of course Milley has to moderate his language, but NEVER HIS ATTITUDE, which is reflected in those moderated words.

As far as the Russian military is concerned, I and no Americans ever said anything remotely like what you tried to portrayed us: getting out of that fight 'safe and sound'.

Why is it that people ALWAYS hold US against the perfection standard is beyond us Americans on this forum. :rolleyes:

No, we will not leave that hypothetical fight 'safe and sound', but I share the same sentiment as Generally Milley, that we WILL beat the Russian military in all areas of specialties: ground, sea, and air.

Milley is Army, I am Air Force.

Speaking as an Air Force veteran on two jets, F-111 ( Cold War ) and F-16 ( Desert Storm ), I am %100 confidence that US air power, in totality, will decimate the Russian Air Force to the same degree as we did the Iraqi Air Force. Not as quickly, but in any contested airspace, US air power will prevail, be it Russian or Chinese.

- Air Dominance: The ability of an air force to compel other air forces into re-arraying themselves into subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority: The ability of an air force to achieve effective control of any contested air space, repeatedly if necessary, and if there are any losses, those losses will not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

- Air Supremacy: He flies, he dies. Simple as that.

Did that made me a 'warmonger' ?

Let me explain Air Superiority since that tends to be the most confusing idea.

Air Superiority is about making the other guy less and less effective in challenging you in traversing contested airspace at any time. It does not mean he cannot be in that contested airspace. It means we can fight, but at the end, I will be able to transport our troops and assorted logistics without considering the other guy -- WHATSOEVER. It means that if one general told another general that X number of rocket launchers will be at so-and-so location at so-and-so time, the Air Force will and can guarantee that delivery even going thru contested airspace.

No other air force can walk that talk, pal.

Again...Did that made me a 'warmonger' ?

No, it mean that as a veteran of the US military, I am THAT confident of our Air Force to win and my confidence is based upon actual service of considerable time. Like General Milley, we are not 'warmongers' but we have no problems letting potential adversaries know our minds, even with moderated language as to not hurt your sensitive feelings. :sad:
HI,
This is mostly theory and definitions of some military expressions.. they were practiced a on some 1000 times smaller forces.. I doubt it can succeed against another super power (not called like that for nothing!).. Can Americans sustain very or extremely heavy losses while trying to implement those theories? I doubt it, and they will think more than twice before taking that decision..against Russia it will be a matter of life and death of a super power and too many interests will be threatened..like Chinese ones and so many others, even Europe might not want to fight that hypothetical war due to its proximity to Russia..
 
I'm afraid but China cannot stay out of it. Just have a look at South China sea. Russia is not alone.
Also American people are really angry of USA's war-machine. They will not send their kids to fight an anti-terror country like Russia. The same in EU. Europeans people are also are on Russian side. Believe it or not Russia has pushed USA-Israel on the wall. Whole the free world including nations worldwide will stand with Russia.:victory:
Do you think America and Russia will ever go to war???
 
A very eloquent and resonant speech by General Mark A. Milley:

 
US had committed a large number of its assets to the Pacific region front during WW-II. Due to this factor, their was a limit to how many troops and assets US could commit to the European front. Nonetheless, D-Day was a very impressive operation.

D-Day involved the landing of 6 divisions on June 4th 1944. Meanwhile the American forces took possession of Rome on 4 June 1944, after four major offensives between January and May 1944 to break the so-called Winter Line, which was eventually broken by a combined assault of the Fifth and Eighth Armies

The D-Day landings were followed by Operation Dragoon (initially Operation Anvil) was the codename for the Allied invasion of Southern France on 15 August 1944, landing 3 US and 4 French divisions.

The largest amphibious operation of WW2 was the landings in Okinawa on 1 April 1945, which involved putting ashore 4 Army and 3 Marine divisions.


As far as losses are concerned; perhaps, Americans were not willing to loose millions on the ground like that. However, Americans wouldn't have fought in the same manner in the first place. Their strategy was to erode the will of an enemy state to fight by destroying its cities, industrial capability and military capability; a strategy in which a powerful Navy and Airforce would play a key role.
Like the Soviet Union, the US leveraged is industrial potential to fight a war of attrition that was unsustainable for Germany and Japan. The main difference between US and USSR in this respect is that the USSR could also use its manpower potential to a greater extent, and was more ruthless both in putting men at the front and using scorched earth in retreat (leaving population remaining in lost territory without any way of sustaining itself)

Even if Operation Barbarossa had not happened, I am not sure how long Germany could hold out. Americans were willing to use even nuclear weapons to win the war back then.
The US envisioned a long and protracted battle for Japan main islands, with mass casualties, which they wanted to avoid. And they also didn't want to give Stalin a lot of time to take up positions in the far east, following its entry in earnest on that front (which had been agreed on with US) .
 
I agree on some parts..still, the Germans were the first ones to test crude nuclear weapons (you can find facts and pictures on the net..google Peneemud also)..If no German troops, weapons and resources were dedicated to the Eastern front, I doubt the US could have found any bases in Europe from which to launch any Areal attacks, and on the ground like you just said, the US would not commit millions of lives to free Europe.
The Americans could create such bases in areas where defenses were relatively weaker or exploit gaps in the defenses of The Third Reich for the said purpose. Aircraft Carriers would have been used as well.
 
Last edited:
Do you think America and Russia will ever go to war???
Firstly Russia is not alone :

https://www.rt.com/news/362323-us-shield-europe-china/

https://www.rt.com/news/361886-russia-bases-cuba-vietnam/

Secondly USA doesn't dare to attack Russia singly. USA will not fight Russia without it's colonized NATO countries.
Seemingly Russia is doing it's best efforts to satisfy EU to recognize Russia as a friend :

https://www.rt.com/news/265399-putin-nato-europe-ukraine-italy/

https://www.rt.com/news/362285-putin-erdogan-turkey-meeting/

Russia is talking from heart and she behaves honestly :

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/361300-russia-winning-information-war/

Now we must understand the reason of USA's efforts on destroying Syria. Obviously we know that USA is not being controlled by it's people. That's an undeniable fact. In fact AIPAC, CIA, Federal reserve and other Zionist controlled lobbies are determining USA's foreign policy and it's military actions. USA's president is actually a crow! without any kind of Official authorities and it's reason is inside the philosophy of "murdering of J.F.Kennedy". He was an An scarecrow for other crows of USA.
We already know that NWO and Greater Israel is desire of those Zionists.
So when put these facts together, we can catch these points :
1) Russia and USA are in competition on satisfying EU nations.
2) USA's citizens are not the enemies of Russia.
3) EU nations are not the enemies of Russia.
4) NATO is the greatest danger to global peace.
Finally Russia will win any scenario of the war coz most of western nations are pretty angry and tired of Zionist lobbies in their countries. Attacking Russia will be the end of mad imperialists and capitalist. I can imagine a great revolution in western countries to overthrow the terrorist organizations like NATO.

Do you think America and Russia will ever go to war???
War is always hated by me. But if American citizens stay out of it , a war is possible. Only U.S. citizens can can stop the war-machine of Zionists for example John McCain, George Soros , David Rockfeller and etc.
 
1035082158.jpg


https://sputniknews.com/military/201611251047833352-europe-conventional-arms-control/


MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The foreign ministers of 14 European nations have called to renew conventional arms controls to reduce military risks after seeing the existing treaties "crumble" in recent years, in a declaration published Friday.

"We are convinced that a relaunch of conventional arms control is one important path towards a genuine and effective cooperative security allowing for peace and stability on our continent," the statement read.

According to the document, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe is not being fully implemented and the OSCE’s Vienna Document needs to be overhauled. Some provisions of the Open Skies Treaty are also not being enforced.

The declaration was promoted by Germany and signed by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It called on other nations to join the initiative.

This comes after German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a local newspaper, Die Welt, that joint initiatives and a dialogue with Russia were crucial for stability and security in Europe.

****************
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ge...ess-for-arms-control-deal-with-russia-2016-11

The group plans to issue a joint statement on Friday and will meet again on the sidelines of a Dec. 8-9 ministerial level OSCE meeting in Hamburg that will be hosted by Germany, which now holds the rotating presidency of the OSCE.

Steinmeier condemned Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, saying such acts undermined delicate bonds of trust built up over decades and threatened to unleashed a new arms race.

He urged more countries to join the arms control initiative.

"We have a responsibility to leave no stone unturned in our effort to increase security and peace," he told the paper.

U.S. officials are skeptical about the initiative, citing Russia's failure to abide by existing agreements and treaties.

Steinmeier also drew criticism from U.S. and NATO officials in June after warning that Western military maneuvers in eastern Europe amounted to "saber-rattling and shrill war cries" that could worsen tensions with Russia.

His Social Democrats (SPD) generally back a more conciliatory stance toward Russia than Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative bloc.

Both parties are concerned about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's comments during the campaign about rebuilding ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and suggesting that he may scale back protection of NATO allies.
 
https://sputniknews.com/world/201611261047864471-europe-russia-peace-treaty/
(updated 12:51 26.11.2016)

According to the document, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe is not being fully implemented and the OSCE’s Vienna Document needs to be overhauled. Some provisions of the Open Skies Treaty are also not being enforced.

The original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was negotiated and concluded during the last years of the Cold War and established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry.

The treaty proposed equal limits for the two "groups of states-parties", the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact.

In 2007, Russia suspended its participation in the treaty, and on March 10, 2015, citing NATO's de facto breach of the Treaty, Russia formally announced it was completely halting its participation.

"If a new treaty fixes the number of military equipment deployed in Europe, it will prevent its further build-up. If it agrees upon reduction of the scale and frequency of military drills and stipulates that they should not be held on the border with Russia, it will only benefit Moscow," he added.

The expert also noted that the previous treaty did not include Poland and the Baltic States, hence it would be useful to include them into the new document, stipulating what national armies could be deployed to their territories and what should be the maximum size of such a contingent.

***********

Signed on November 19, 1990

The Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the States Parties


Committed to the objective of ensuring that the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty within the area of application of this Treaty do not exceed 40,000 battle tanks, 60,000 armoured combat vehicles, 40,000 pieces of artillery, 13,600 combat aircraft and 4,000 attack helicopters,


******************

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) -- Final Document

Vienna, 15-31 May 1996

The Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Republic, the Republic of Belarus, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, Georgia, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Kazakstan, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, which are the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of 19 November 1990, hereinafter referred to as the States Parties,



II

1. Within the area described in Article V, subparagraph 1(A), of the Treaty, as understood by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the time the Treaty was signed, Russian Federation shall limit its battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, and artillery so that, no later than 31 May 1999 and thereafter, the aggregate numbers do not exceed:

  • (A) 1,800 battle tanks;

    (B) 3,700 armoured combat vehicles, of which no more than 552 shall be located within the Astrakhan oblast; no more than 552 shall be located within the Volgograd oblast; no more than 310 shall be located within the eastern part of the Rostov oblast described in Section III, paragraph 1, of this Document; and no more than 600 shall be located within the Pskov oblast; and

    (C) 2,400 pieces of artillery.
2. Within the Odessa oblast, Ukraine shall limit its battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, and artillery so that, upon provisional application of this Document and thereafter, the aggregate numbers do not exceed:


  • (A) 400 battle tanks;
    (B) 400 armoured combat vehicles; and
    (C) 350 pieces of artillery.







3. Upon provisional application of this Document and until 31 May 1999, the Russian Federation shall limit its battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, and artillery, within the area described in Article V, subparagraph 1(A), of the Treaty, as understood by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the time the Treaty was signed, so that the aggregate numbers do not exceed:


  • (A) 1,897 battle tanks;
    (B) 4,397 armoured combat vehicles; and
    (C) 2,422 pieces of artillery.

State

Russian Federation
Treaty Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
Action Type Ratification
Depositary Government of The Netherlands
Date 6 Gruodžio 2004

Adaptation of the CFE Treaty. Particularly given the emergence in Europe of so-called grey areas that are not covered by the regime of the CFE Treaty, primarily including the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the possible stationing of NATO troops, armaments and military facilities in these areas, further delays to this process may call into question both the arms control process and the positive trends in Russia's relations with the alliance.
 
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=717714
November 28, 2016 20:52

Russia ready to participate in development of new arms control agreements - Russian Foreign Ministry
MOSCOW. Nov 28 (Interfax) - Moscow is ready to negotiate new agreements on arms control, the Russian Foreign Ministry's North America department head Georgy Borisenko said.

"Negotiating new agreements on arms control is relevant, Russia is ready to participate in development of such agreements on the grounds of principles of equality and indivisibility of security provided these agreements are consistent with the national interests of our country and facilitate ensuring strategic security," he said at the Primakov Readings international conference on Monday.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom