Is the UN worth keeping?

Got time to answer the rest of your post

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

Well I clearly can't see countries like Greece, Turkey, Balkans (Romania, for example). Their army isn't as irrelevant as Benelux or Denmark's.

Greek army is the only formidable one in East Europe as NATO army. Romania and Bulgaria have underpaid armies, with depleted arsenal as they didnt maintain it since collapse of Communism. Their reserve is wasted as they stopped recruiting while old recruits gone reserve are now 50 y/o people. Plus their armies are mixed Soviet/American weaponry, which is the worst nightmare for army, different bullets, different guns, different artillery, different planes, different tanks.

Denmark and Netherland have stronger armies than Bulgaria and Romania, but their armies are way to small to fight Russia, their armies are only enough to support, to be auxiliary units near German, English or French army. But as i said above, they cannot unite in war because they have different interest, one side wants to be good with Russia while others want to fight.

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

With so many people in their army, stronger economy, U.S dependence on China and a fight in their own homeland (this if U.S want to prevent losing japan, South Korea), I highly doubt this. Fighting outside of their homeland though.... Then maybe.

Dont forget China hold $1.5 trillion American debt plus China saved $4 trillion dollars in Chinese reserves. By banking standards - if China request their money back from America, and America fail to comply (to return 1.5 trillion), they have to announce bankrupcy. And then the hell break loose, people lose jobs, banks request loans to be paid from ordinary people immediately, people losing homes due mortgage, strikes, riots, then racism and crime rise.

And if China 'throw in' 4 trillion dollars in America (lets say buy assets, goods or giving loans), that will create inflation in America and dollar will become weaker than ruble. That will create 1/2 Americans poor while rich will lose 90% of their wealth. And then again hell break loose. It will hurt China as well though, as America order many products from China, trade worth around $250 billion, or 3% of Chinese economy.

Imagine China using both weapons in the same time.

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 06.09.2015 at 17:26

On smaller scale concerning Kosovo, Serbia is way larger and stronger than Albania, they can easily liberate kosovo when America pull troops from to send them against Russia and China.

Finland vs Russia. Really though, unexpected results does happens.

True, if Albania is armed and trained well as Finland, they can win, but Albania never had real army and their force is exercised by paramilitaries, family clans and armed civilians. There is corruption in Albania like in Afghanistan, which makes their army crippled. Their most effective force is KLA/UCK and Albanian volunteers armed with light weaponry. They move fast and use guerilla warfare. To beat GW you need to use heavy infantry as planes and tanks cant help against fast light-armed infantry (as proved in vietnam war, afghanistan war, isis). Serbia already have experience with fighting terrorism and guerilla warfare as they fought Albanians for 10 years 15 years ago. Problem is American installed military base 'Bondsteel' on Kosovo to protect Albanians, there are 5000 heavy armed troops. If Serbia attack it America might use it as excuse 'Pearl Harbor' and nuke Serbia (as they said they would in 1999 when NATO almost lost the war).

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

NATO countries are forced to declare the war if any of their members is being attacked [Correct me if I'm wrong]. So is European union [correct me if I'm wrong]. It would'be quite interesting to imagine how the world war 3 would'be between Russia and USA, but at the end it will probably end with Russia and the rest with their economy destroyed and not enough mechanics for ensure the goods, while U.S would have their factories intact (Just like in WW1, WW2..). This is because U.S is so damm far !

True, thats why we observe events in Europe now, and results are surprising and interesting. Europe and America sanctioned Russia and Europeans complain, they dont support sanctions, they are already angry on their governments. So if Estonia go to war with Russia i doubt French civilian will support his government going to war with Russia over Estonia and risk Paris to be nuked. They dont feel foreign wars are theirs as well. Beside, NATO was created to fight Communism and USSR, not democratic capitalist Russia and Europeans realize that. NATO was meant to protect capitalist way of life from communism, but now Russia is captialist like Europe so Europeans dont see why they should use NATO against a country similar to their own.

Also, Russia never said it want to conquer West Europe or East, not even USSR made such claims. NATO still didnt got proof of Russian Army in Ukraine. Nevertheless, many Europeans still consider ex-Soviet states as natural territories of Russia because that part of the world was Russia for hundreds of years. For example Estonia never existed, it was Swedish Empire and than gifted to Russian Empire, Belarus was Russian, then Polish then Russian again, same with Ukraine. And today those countries are new and independent which seems very artificial to European. Unlike Austrian Empire which had Hungary, Czechoslovaki and Croatia, all of them had long history before Austria captured them.

---

But if you ask me, there are good things from collapse of USSR, now Russia is sanctioned, cant trade with Europe, but Belarus isnt Belarus can sell Russian products on European market and give profit to Russia while taking cut. Same with Kazakhstan. Plus none of them have right on Siberian resources anymore as they separated, in USSR and Russian Empire they could claim Siberian resources because they were part of the country. Siberia is estimated to posses resources worth $50 trillion dollars. Congo is 2nd with $25 trillion.

Citat:

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

Dont forget China hold $1.5 trillion American debt plus China saved $4 trillion dollars in Chinese reserves. By banking standards - if China request their money back from America, and America fail to comply (to return 1.5 trillion), they have to announce bankrupcy. And then the hell break loose, people lose jobs, banks request loans to be paid from ordinary people immediately, people losing homes due mortgage, strikes, riots, then racism and crime rise.

And if China 'throw in' 4 trillion dollars in America (lets say buy assets, goods or giving loans), that will create inflation in America and dollar will become weaker than ruble. That will create 1/2 Americans poor while rich will lose 90% of their wealth. And then again hell break loose. It will hurt China as well though, as America order many products from China, trade worth around $250 billion, or 3% of Chinese economy.

Imagine China using both weapons in the same time.

cant respond completely due to time constraints. I will remind you that while China owns American debt, they cannot simply "ask for it back" immediately. It simply doesn't work that way. It's like taking a 10 year mortgage out with a bank- you owe the bank, but the bank can't come by 2 years later and say you owe them all the money.

Th earth is flat

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 08.09.2015 at 14:22

cant respond completely due to time constraints. I will remind you that while China owns American debt, they cannot simply "ask for it back" immediately. It simply doesn't work that way. It's like taking a 10 year mortgage out with a bank- you owe the bank, but the bank can't come by 2 years later and say you owe them all the money.

Of course they cant ask for it tomorrow, but they can when time comes (contract agreement allow it). That is about 10 years from now, very short period of time.

But China can still use $4 trillion dollars anytime. Maybe thats why their stock market crashed few weeks ago, maybe it was triggered by America because they knew China will try to save it and spend $billions. And indeed, China depleted its dollar reserves for $500 billion.

The United Nations promotes a spirit of brotherhood between all mankind, compiles detailed statistics available to the public, facilitates international humanitarian aid (what little there is, anyways), and serves as a medium through which nations can express their grievances.

That alone makes the UN worth funding. The UN can disband every last peacekeeping unit they have and they'll still be worth the money.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 07.09.2015 at 05:25

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

Ummm, not really. Maybe if the world suddenly decides to go full retard (this means, using EVERYTHING they have, nukes includes). Then yeah I'd say Russia have a chance.

Au contrair, with nukes, everyone lose: because if only one nuke hit its target, it is over. That mean if America fire nuke at Russia and Russian anti-nuke system destroy it, Russia retaliate by firing nuke back to America, nuke hit New York - Russia lose as well.

Today sides are pretty much balanced in terms of economies and militaries. Both West and East have equal chance to win if war start tomorrow. But East grow faster so they will have advantage in the near future. Thats why America started Ukrainian Civil War, Syrian War and sanctioned Iran, they were all Russian allies.

Excuse me... what would Russia lose if they successfully hit New York with a Nuke? Since I've assumed the world would go full retard (Which means, approving the use of nukes) the only thing I see that would affect that (International opinion) is irrelevant for the war.

Would you say Russian army is ready to match U.S army? Because they're just recovering from a long time of having obsolete URSS army...

How about the organizations? Would you say Russia is ready to match up the CIA in term of espionage, sabotage, etc?

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 07.09.2015 at 05:25

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

It is? I've saw merkel distancing from Putin in many times...

Merkel is one women,

Merkel is the person supposed to represent all the people in Germany.

Interesting to see what their minister said. In countries of somewhat-relevance like Germany, the pressure of being president should'be stronger. However I have failed to find any source that confirm that most of the Germans doesn't support the sanction on Russia.

As for the rest of the countries, I've googled it and, at least in the information I google'd, it was true. I didn't see how much of their population support the sanctions against Russia however.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 07.09.2015 at 05:25

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:58

Their army is irrelevant, anyway....

They are not united 100%, there cannot be communication between Bulgarian NATO military and French military, or Italian and Danish, English and Romanian, they are different, plus not to mention different weapons they use since collapse of communism.

Who knows....

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 07.09.2015 at 05:25

Greek army is the only formidable one in East Europe as NATO army.

??????????????????????????? WHERE IS TURKEY

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

Imagine China using both weapons in the same time.

Yup, that's why I think China stand a chance even with their technologically-inferior army.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

True, if Albania is armed and trained well as Finland, they can win, but Albania never had real army and their force is exercised by paramilitaries, family clans and armed civilians.

Didn't knew that... Well looks like Albania is going to have a hard time there (not harder than serbia though).

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

So if Estonia go to war with Russia i doubt French civilian will support his government going to war with Russia over Estonia and risk Paris to be nuked. They dont feel foreign wars are theirs as well. Beside, NATO was created to fight Communism and USSR, not democratic capitalist Russia and Europeans realize that. NATO was meant to protect capitalist way of life from communism, but now Russia is captialist like Europe so Europeans dont see why they should use NATO against a country similar to their own.

I've hear histories of Russia being considered as 'Asian country' and European borders ending in Ukraine... I wonder if this came from EU or U.S.

Anyway, if Greece had left the Euro then I would feel more inclined to your point of view, but they didn't so I don't really know if Europe is that united. They did united themselves (or U,S forced them to unite) against Russia in Crimea. I also don't think the EU see Russia with so friendly eyes since Russia is not even in its organization, doesn't use Euro, and have a culture that is different in certain degree, to european one.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

Nevertheless, many Europeans still consider ex-Soviet states as natural territories of Russia because that part of the world was Russia for hundreds of years. For example Estonia never existed, it was Swedish Empire and than gifted to Russian Empire, Belarus was Russian, then Polish then Russian again, same with Ukraine. And today those countries are new and independent which seems very artificial to European. Unlike Austrian Empire which had Hungary, Czechoslovaki and Croatia, all of them had long history before Austria captured them.

Disagree. Belarus and Ukraine were different people (ethnics). And I believe that was the case with Hungary, Czech, Croatia and Austria. It looked more like if Imperialist Russia just annexed them.

Not to talk the high disapproval rate of Poland population against Russia...

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

...[Belarus and Kazakhstan].... Plus none of them have right on Siberian resources anymore as they separated, in USSR and Russian Empire they could claim Siberian resources because they were part of the country. Siberia is estimated to posses resources worth $50 trillion dollars. Congo is 2nd with $25 trillion.

1. They didn't had rights in the Imperialist Russia. I'd go further and say Belarus was actually repressed by Russians for a long time - and that's what helped them to build their own nationalism movement, their identity, with the time. Atm I'd rather say Belarus is a puppet of Russia.

2. Many countries were forced to join the URSS - Belarus was one of them. Not sure about Kazakhstan, would have to research more. Assuming in the URSS anyone from those countries would'be considered as citizen of the URSS, then theoretically they should have rights there, sure.

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 09.09.2015 at 07:24

Napisano od Pheonixking929, 08.09.2015 at 14:22

cant respond completely due to time constraints. I will remind you that while China owns American debt, they cannot simply "ask for it back" immediately. It simply doesn't work that way. It's like taking a 10 year mortgage out with a bank- you owe the bank, but the bank can't come by 2 years later and say you owe them all the money.

Of course they cant ask for it tomorrow, but they can when time comes (contract agreement allow it). That is about 10 years from now, very short period of time.

But China can still use $4 trillion dollars anytime. Maybe thats why their stock market crashed few weeks ago, maybe it was triggered by America because they knew China will try to save it and spend $billions. And indeed, China depleted its dollar reserves for $500 billion.

Oh okay. I thought you were saying China at ANY TIME could call up their debt.

As for their recession (or soon to be.... im assuming), I don't think America would have caused it- a Chinese recession would affect us as well. Not onyl that, but AMerica is currently a major buyer fo Chinese goods- to attempt to hurt the funds of your customers is bad economics (now when China begins to have larger consumers elsewhere is where the likelihood of this occurring increases).

With That said, I see the market collapse as simply part of the boom and bust every economy will face. China had rapid economic growth- I believe the fastest in the world. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of new jobs were created in the past decade of truly amazing growth. This "real" growth led to "fake" growth (speculation) in the stock market. What caused the sudden downturn I am not sure (love to hear theories or the actual reason why if it exist), but stocks are a boom and bust and when you have an economy that revolves around it, you can expect to have some lows.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Excuse me... what would Russia lose if they successfully hit New York with a Nuke? Since I've assumed the world would go full retard (Which means, approving the use of nukes) the only thing I see that would affect that (International opinion) is irrelevant for the war.

Nuclear explosion can destroy enviroment, change climate, that will hurt whole world, not only New York. Nature is very fragile and and one thing can create chain reaction.


Volcano eruption in South America in 1600 created famine in Russia. Thats how serious it is.


wikipedia/huaynaputina

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Would you say Russian army is ready to match U.S army? Because they're just recovering from a long time of having obsolete URSS army...

Today, yes, but not in 1992. Russian Army was the weakest in 1992 because USSR collapsed, new republics took Soviet equipment, officers left the army to join newly formed national armies. And that crippled Russian military. That was the second American chance to beat Russia. First was in 1946 when America got nuke and USSR still didnt.

Russia have more reserve troops (20 million) while America have only 3 million, although America have 1.3 million active and Russia only 700,000 (no need to have more active in peace time, America need more troops because of all the invasions). Soviet technology is sligthly better than American which give superiority to Russians, plus Russian numbers of manpower. Russia can beat America in war, but cannot invade America and occupy them, only USSR could do that because of their crazy blitzkrieg and deep battle operations.

America still beat Russia in economic output as Russia have that gap for over 100 years (communism fault, i explained it in 'problems in communism', you've read it).

But Soviet technology is still usable, it is not obsolete yet because T-80 is same age as Abrams M1, AK-47 cannot be upgraded more, plane cannot manouver better than MiG-29. The only thing that is obsolete are radars and radios, which Russia replaced already on tanks, planes, ships and submarines. Radars are eyes while torpedos and missiles are still soviet and create enough damage, no need to spend billions to create new missiles which make only 5% more damage.

Putin ordered new weapons to be created, to replace old, but at slow pace, because Soviet weaponry will need to be replaced in 20 years, so by that time Russia will be ready to replace it with new modern Russian weaponry. They already started production of new tank, artillery, armored vehicle, jet fighter, submarine and battleship. I posted that here:


http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=19234

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

How about the organizations? Would you say Russia is ready to match up the CIA in term of espionage, sabotage, etc?

Soviet KGB had 400,000 workers, today Russian FSB (successor of KGB) have 400,000 workers. And Russia is smaller than Soviet Union with 50% less population. That tells us FSB is still large intelligence network.

Russia created separate espionage agency called 'SVR' and they have around 60,000 spies in America according to them as they said USSR had 10,000(six times higher today)

GRU (military agency) also spy American army and weaponry, they have base in Cuba from where they travel to America and back.

Russian security services are not weaker than the Soviet, but they had lost many agents who created Russian Mafia in Russia and abroad in the 90's.

The only difference is that CIA have help and support of European spies and and Japanese, Australian spies. They have their support when they move through their territory or part of the world, while Russia dont have help and have to do everything alone.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chief_Directorate


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_%28Russia%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Russia%29

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Merkel is the person supposed to represent all the people in Germany.

Interesting to see what their minister said. In countries of somewhat-relevance like Germany, the pressure of being president should'be stronger. However I have failed to find any source that confirm that most of the Germans doesn't support the sanction on Russia.

As for the rest of the countries, I've googled it and, at least in the information I google'd, it was true. I didn't see how much of their population support the sanctions against Russia however.

Exactly, she is supposed to represent people, not decide for them.


http://sputniknews.com/business/20150619/1023600567.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303369904579424673791176620
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/16/us-ukraine-crisis-germany-gabriel-idUSKCN0J00RH20141116
http://www.rt.com/op-edge/211843-russia-germany-against-sanctions/
http://www.rt.com/news/219771-sanctions-russia-dangerous-germany/



bonus: 60% Germans like Socialism, 20% wants revolution, 62% say democracy is fake

http://www.rt.com/news/234939-germans-want-revolution-report/

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 07.09.2015 at 05:25

Greek army is the only formidable one in East Europe as NATO army.

??????????????????????????? WHERE IS TURKEY

Turkey is not in Europe... plus their army is underfunded and corrupted. They are not efficient fighting force.

When i lived in Greece i've seen more soldiers than policemen. They were always training, polishing guns, studying tactics, shooting.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Didn't knew that... Well looks like Albania is going to have a hard time there (not harder than serbia though).

Serbian army also suffer from communism collapse. Their army is now mixed of NATO-Soviet weaponry, with underpaid soldiers. But new nationalist government started funding military again since 2 years ago, reforming it. Serbian strength lies in Serbian Special Forces (Special Brigade). Their SF commanders new communism will collapse and there will be wars so they started their own training and recruiting program, creating Spartans. They are independent from the Army and Police. And they fight whenever they think it is necessary, they dont obey presidents and generals.

Serbian Special Brigade always win some medal on Special Forces International competition. Usually get in top 3 spot along with American and Russian special forces.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

I've hear histories of Russia being considered as 'Asian country' and European borders ending in Ukraine... I wonder if this came from EU or U.S.

I always considered Russia Asian country (it owns whole North Asia), and Moscow as border of Europe-Asia. But geographers and historians declare Russia as European country because 40% of Russia is Europe (til Ural).

It doesnt matter anyway, it matters that Russia border Europe and China, two economic powerhouses and markets where Russia can trade and create material wealth. India is also close but too bad on the one side are Afghanistan and Pakistan, two hostile countries and on the other side is Himalai, no way to transport goods to India to trade.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Anyway, if Greece had left the Euro then I would feel more inclined to your point of view, but they didn't so I don't really know if Europe is that united. They did united themselves (or U,S forced them to unite) against Russia in Crimea. I also don't think the EU see Russia with so friendly eyes since Russia is not even in its organization, doesn't use Euro, and have a culture that is different in certain degree, to european one.

But Greece along Cyprus and Hungary is thinking to stop sanctions and continue trade with Russia, and French and Italian lawmakers visited Crimea and talked to civilians. Now Polish lawmakers think to visit Crimea and decide to stop sanctions because it is hurting them. Try to google please, im too tired of searching for links.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Disagree. Belarus and Ukraine were different people (ethnics). And I believe that was the case with Hungary, Czech, Croatia and Austria. It looked more like if Imperialist Russia just annexed them.

Not to talk the high disapproval rate of Poland population against Russia...

Russia was born in Kiev (modern capital of Ukraine), so Russia cannot annex its birthplace, it can only return to it. Owner of the home cannot occupy his house, thats called living in it.

Belarus and Ukraine experiences local nationalism promoted by Soviet Korenizatsiya and National Delimitation in USSR (check wikipedia for that). Same happened to Macedonia and Montenegro. They are Serbs who changed their nationality in Communism. Macedonians speak Western Bulgarian language, not Serbian because they were longer under Turkish occupation while North Serbia liberated itself earlier and had reformed/changed a bit through freedom, capitalism and democracy. So societies created differences and communist exploited that 50 years later.

You will see soon Local(regional nationalism) in other parts of the world. Croatians from Dalmatia and Slavonia will declare themselves 'Slavonians and Dalmatians'. Serbians from North Serbian region Voyvodina will call themselves ' Voivodinans'. North Italians will call themselves Venetians, north Poles will call themselves Prussians, Coastal Chinese will call themselves Shanghaienese and Hong Kongese etc. They decide their nationality according to differences in society, wealth, class level or political ideology and allegience. Very stupid.

Napisano od clovis1122, 09.09.2015 at 08:14

Napisano od Skanderbeg, 08.09.2015 at 07:01

...[Belarus and Kazakhstan].... Plus none of them have right on Siberian resources anymore as they separated, in USSR and Russian Empire they could claim Siberian resources because they were part of the country. Siberia is estimated to posses resources worth $50 trillion dollars. Congo is 2nd with $25 trillion.

1. They didn't had rights in the Imperialist Russia. I'd go further and say Belarus was actually repressed by Russians for a long time - and that's what helped them to build their own nationalism movement, their identity, with the time. Atm I'd rather say Belarus is a puppet of Russia.

2. Many countries were forced to join the URSS - Belarus was one of them. Not sure about Kazakhstan, would have to research more. Assuming in the URSS anyone from those countries would'be considered as citizen of the URSS, then theoretically they should have rights there, sure.

Imperial Russia was capitalist and had free movement. 10 million Ukrainians and Belorusians moved to Siberia when Trans-Siberian railway is created in 19th century, so they can get free land and resources. Russia could not forbid its citizens to exploit Russian resources. But today Belarus and others have to pay Russia for resources, then Russia transport resources to Belarus so they can use them, because they are foreign country, not united anymore. Which is good for Russia, and bad for independent states.

Belorusians say today they can join Russian Federation whenever they want, because they are same people. But no need. They just created free border so they can move. Similar they wanted to create with Ukraine but nazis took power and destroyed all agreements.

Well, there were no countries in the first place - to join USSR, because Communists just took territories of the Russian Empire, they didnt invade any other country. So entering Minsk and Kiev in Russian Civil War wasnt occupation and invasion because they werent foreign states, they tried to be, but were not. If Russia today invade Belarus and Ukraine and civilians disagree, that would be invasion, because Ukraine and Belarus are independent. Thats the difference.

It's sad to see the "nos" are winning