Russophobia

Killing a rouge KGB agent isn't an act against USA. I don't see how that is relevant.

The Nuclear Air Patrols suck but mind you, it's because YOU didn't stop doing it.

Then you said it yourself, "They threatened to move nukes close to your ally when you moved missile defence stations close to them". You provoked a response.

So while that means Russia can still BE a threat, you're the one making it one.

That would imply that the United States of America could actually make a mistake. Please.

The US is Jesus. Now accept Jesus into your lives or we'll kill you.

Seems legit. :D

Tom: The U.S. is equally brutal and ruthless as the Russians nothing new under the sun here.

Ok enough off topic. A portion of this discussion would be better in a thread all it's own or the military thread.

I have already listed the military view and reasons for them damn dirty Red Russians and I pointed out the belief, that was over played, that they were a massive horde of marauding vandals coming to Rome.

Can anyone else think of something that contributed to this?

edited 28th Oct '11 9:41:41 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Anyhow, Russia is not a demonstrably credible threat to the United States in any capacity. The People's Republic of China is (as well as the EU, in theory), and to oppose China we need Russia's help.

Ergo, I don't give a shit about stupid little stuff Russia does—that isn't even that much worse than what we do—if it means I get a credible ally against China.

Us eating up and accepting former Wehrmacht officers' self-serving memoirs as truisms.

Every single thing the Russians have done since Putin came to power was only in retaliation to the US and/or Europe trying to mess with its zone of influence. Leave them alone, they leave the US alone.

Russia has too much on its own plate to give a shit about the United States. Thats why Putin won't do anything (other than it being a momumentally stupid idea anyway). Speaking of stupid Tom, citation needed that Medvedev is dense. Yes, Putin is the real power, but Medvedev isn't a puppet. As a technocrat, he handles things Putin couldn't possibly do himself intellectually, such as diversification of the economy.

Russia of real life does not work like the Russia of Modern Warfare or a Tom Clancy novel.

I'd disagree.

Russians attack. US Navy moves to meet them. Canada and Mexico do a joint attack and then retreat further and further back, Russian style, attracting the US troops in. Winter on the north, hurricane season on the south. When they are deep enough, immediate surender of the governmet and state armies. The militias take over: assymetric warfare on two humongous territories. Meanwhile Russia declares they heard of the Canadian/Mexican offensive and were actually sending their navy... to attack Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico are invaded by the Russians at the same time as the Americans. Both countries are therefore occupied jointly, Post WWII Europe style. Except the Russians aren't facing almost any assymetric warfare on their side. US military is stuck having to adapt to assymetric opponent, Russian military is still adapted to fighting armies. They keep bringing troops in. At some point, we throw our hands up in the air and give up. Everyone agrees to demilitarize forever, and Alls Well That Ends Well.

Or Is It? Profiting from the Russian distraction, China expands all over the Pacific and Indian oceans with little trouble: the leaders of the aforementioned countries were bought in advance, and it's easy as Anschluss and requires almost no troop movements. Then they march against Russia. Which has most of its troops in Canada and Mexico. To Be Continued.

Why does this feel like a soap opera?

...which pissed off the British and was entirely irrelevant to American interests, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. "Former KGB agent assassinated in London" is not a headline likely to attract much American attention.

^ The fact the polonium-210 used to kill him was spread all over Europe was to prove the Russians were worse in the assassination regard since they didn't care about the collateral.

So stop getting rid of your nukes and stop complaining.

I'd think Europe would comprehend that being closer to the people they think are hostile and who have a metric fuckton of nukes means you need more yourself, not less.

And this is different from the Americans...how? Drone strike assassinations come to mind with their own collateral damage.

At least a single drone strike doesn't terrorize an entire continent. Litvenenko's assassination did.

No, it just outright kills without hope of recovery. As I recall, no one else actually died from the KGB assassination, even if they were affected.

Russia is not a democracy, it's not a complete dictatorship either. It's suspended between the two. "Mild authoritarism" is the best way to describe it. Medvedev, however, is pretty-much non-entity, and I predict that he'll be not important at all after Putin returns as a President next year.

There's much wrong with today's Russia, but "plans to invade America" is not one of them, and if anyone thinks that there's gonna be a Russian-American conflict in the future, he's stupid. In terms of foreign policy (though not domestic) I'd say that the US is worse then Russia.

There isn't that much difference between what Russia did to Abkhazia and Ossetia and what the "West" did to Kosovo (I'm talking about the situation prior to 2008, the 2008 conflict was the result of Georgian president's insane attempt to put an end to this situation).

Since the OP mentioned Leninism, I'd point out that quite a lot of Russia's contemporary "red-brown" ferment wuvs Stalin while disliking Lenin or not mentioning him at all.

In general, I'd say that criticising Russia for something you consider acceptable when it's your country doing it is double standards which can easily foster Russophobia.