Complete and utter nonsense. The Russian military forces are no match for NATO and Putin has no intention of invading or attacking any NATO member states. But if he wants Russia to remain a serious regional power over the medium term he needs to keep Ukraine on board, which is why he is trying to destabilize the current anti-Russian regime in Kiev.
That is nonsense. Did World War III break out when Turkey invaded Cyprus? Did World War III break out when Morocco invaded and annexed the Western Sahara? Did World War III break out when China invaded and annexed Tibet? These things have to be looked at in context and rationally.
You are looking at year on year figures. clearly you don't have a clue about demography. If you will look at UN department of Economic and Social Affairs "World population Prospects" (as revised in 2013) you will see that they expect population in Russia to decline by 16% (23 million people) by 2050. I never talked about "extinction". - - - Updated - - -
You have to look at it in the longer term. China is a rising power with great need for resources and with a very long historical memory (including the not so distant past when the Amur and Maritime provinces were part of China). Over time Russia and China will probably (nothing is predetermined of course) clash over influence in Central Asia and over Siberia. russia's demographic weakness will only contribute to this.
he wants you to think hes bumbling.... but this has been his plan for quite some time.... Flashback: Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea. In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds. After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition. Photographs from the trip show Obama inspecting a plant where Soviet-era artillery shells and shoulder-fired missiles were collecting dust, leftovers dumped in Ukraine after the USSR withdrew from Eastern bloc nations after the once-mighty communist nation fell apart. The United Nations had already identified some 7 million small arms and light weapons, and 2 million tons of conventional ammunition, warehoused in more than 80 weapons depots spread across the country. Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.
The real ethnic people of Ukraine suffered genocide by the old USSR and were all but eliminated so the Russians that occupy the area now aren't going to fight very hard against the Russian army and Putin knows it. Why will be better off as part of the Russian super power for the next hundred years so why fight? Holding out their hand to BH Obama has gotten them nothing but bitter disapointement. The USA offered the people of Ukraine peace and guaranteed them security if they would give up their nuclear weapons and now the dem's base of single mothers and other ignorant fools turns their back with no interest in those white people.
There won't be a war if only one side shows up to fight. And, you won't see too much "news" media coverage over this, either, because what "news" there is related to this, and every other foreign policy issue involving the United States for the last year has made everyone in the Obama regime look like disorganized morons. This whole Ukrainian "thing" is a Ukraine/Russia matter entirely! The United States of America, per se, does NOT "have a dog in this fight". The central banks of the West have wanted to thrust their power and influence into Eastern Europe as part of their collective effort to control completely the economies of all countries in that region, and throughout the world, we have seen that the Russians and Chinese oppose them, pursuing their own national interests instead. Nobody seems to "get" that, but there it is... for the 1,000th time (*sigh!*) At any rate, don't worry -- there will be no "World War III". To have World War III it would be necessary to get the soft, fat, spoiled, socialist European countries to get up off their self-indulgent asses and mount some kind of convincing war-time activities. Lots of luck with that! With the approach of warmer months ahead, they're all planning their month-long vacations. The Russians would have nothing to "fight" but boredom....
I found it. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf Yes it really does tell so. But I haven't understood why. All the basic demographic characteristic according to this forecast will only increase and get better. But thanks for a data. I will have a better look at it later. But so far I need to tell that it is just a prognosis. It doesn't need to be 100% exact. Besides their prognosis made for the year 2025 is pretty much the same with the Russian one (pessimistic). and all the dramatic changes occur later. From the demography I know that those russians who were killed by european nazists in 1941-1945 created a hole in russian demography. They haven't made children which haven't in their turn made their children. So this wave of lack of kids of certain age is still active and will remain active for the 21st century as well. There was also a misleading for a demography tendency that people of my generation prefered to make kids not once they are 20, but once they are 30. This change of life standards was also quite scaring for russian demography. But now it is not that big risk. So if this argument was used about 15 years ago I would agree with the fact. But now - I just suspect that this problem is smth personal. That's why I am asking if I got you right. So what did you mean regarding the ongoing recession in Europe, which means that europeans are going back and how Russia with its economy that has just stopped which means that it is not developing but is not so far shrinking can be left behind? I really don't understand it. If your argument would be about the current volume of the economy and if you told that a power needs to produce more products in percentage to the rest of the world rather than is done by Russia, which has not any chance to expand its economy to the size of the US or EU - I would agree with the facts. But here I wouldn't agree. It contradicts with the realty IMHO. ANyway your points are at least debatable. There is no dramatic change of population for the moment and in the nearest future. As for economy there are no major breakthroughs or set backs of Russia comparing to its companions on the planet.
Russia and China has agreed on their border. Unlike Japan for instance which is still in a status of war with Russia and is in a permanent conflict with China. India is also rich and they don't have a complete agreement over the border. Russia doesn't have an agreement with the Ukraine btw. So basically there is no legal border between us. This is a fact against suppositions. Besides, China has already territories that were naturally taken from it by US. and China is still treating this territory as its own. So once it comes to Amur region it will be a long way. Besides, Siberia is not a separate state. So there cannot be a clash for influence over Russia between Russia and someone else. It just doesn't make sense. As for demographic weakness - it is just a fantasy of another rating-makers. According to some of these ratings US and Ukraine are still reliable countries to pay off the debt...
The officers you're talking about had no troops under their command and didn't include any of the three Commanders-in-Chief. - - - Updated - - - Any demographic projection is always somewhat off. But the trend is pretty clear and unequivocal. You have to take demographic factors into consideration such as the age-structure of the population, health trends, etc. - - - Updated - - - You are very naïve.
Even in this projection life continuation in RF is increasing, mortality decreases and that's why I don't understand why the people who get healthier will not make kids... We had French intervention in the 19th cintury (together with european allies all over). We had German intervention in 20th (together with all sorts of europeans koining the cause of nazists). China has never invaded any european country. Its only enemies were nomadic tribes and the main wars were held inside. Why would I trust a supposition that it would be China that would invade Russia? Naive people trust info which is not based upon facts. So far the only naive person in our dialogue was not me.
As I said, you don't understand the first thing about demographics. - - - Updated - - - Newsflash: Siberia and Central Asia are not in Europe.
You are mistaken about the German military officers being weak or insignificant. The military conspirators were ready to depose Hitler and probably murder him if the western powers resisted but they didn't. So Hitler successfully took over Czechoslovakia, Stalin lost respect for the west and signed a deal with Hitler and only then did WWII become inevitable.
>>>Quoted Post Deleted<<< There is no need to make insults. I've gotten into a lot of trouble here for responding to desperate libs who resort to that tactic but I won't take the bait from you. We learned from the example of Hitler that pacifists cannot avoid a war by giving in to naked aggression by megalomaniacs like Hitler. Putin fits the Hitler mold and I think he will keep gobbling up the former soviet republics as long as Obama and the Euros are afraid to resist him.
I only made a factual observation based on the fact that you obviously failed to understand or read what I wrote.
Nobody is gonna go to war over Ukraine. Or Moldova. Or Latvia. Or Estonia. Or Lithuania. Or Finland. Or Slovakia. People might get testy when the T-90s roll into Galicia, Prussia, and Silesia. Yes Poland and Finland will fight back bravely but they'll be squashed because they'll be fighting alone. Only way real war is started is if Putin crosses the Oder. My guess is that Putin stops there. After eating a deer, the python stops for a while to digest its prey. Putin's window of opportunity closes during his digestion period. Whether he can hold his prey or hold his crumbling country together is another tale.
Putin will not be sending any military into the Baltics or Poland. that, would trigger a war with the USA.
Mac: If none of the opposing commanding officials had any military power, how were they going to oust him? Physically? The cult, which had sunk in by that time would ensure there would be a 'devoted guard' to Hitler. Plus, you neglect that before the former president's death, Hitler engaged in mass murder against 'perceived enemies'. That would definitely make anti-nazi Germans nervous.
They did have military power. The fear was not the troop commanders but the popularity of Hitler with the people. But without the confidence builders of success in the Rhineland, Austria and finally Czechoslovakia even Hiltler was vulnerable if the western powers had stood up to him. WwII in 1938-39 was avoidable. Yes a few French soldiers might have died had the French resisted sooner but not as money as were killed during the Battle of France in 1940.
