Does Russia want a war between the West and Iran?

[Bast]

No, there are probably Mexican and Canadians who are afraid the US is going to invade them because it has offensive weapons too.

Do you ever think before posting? Seriously, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico?

 

[red_elk]

Do you ever think before posting? Seriously, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico?

For the same reason why Russia would invade Poland.

 

[holy king]

canada would even have valuable ressources for the us, unlike poland for russia.

 

[HannibalBarka]

So the West shouldn't play Russia puppit and go to war with Iran. If you don't want Putin to benefit from a war with Iran, than that is another argument not to go to war with Iran, leave Iran alone and give peace a chance ;-)
Now, when Sadam's Iraq went to war against Iran, who encouraged him again ? Wasn't Russia but the peacefull democracies westward

 

[RedRalph]

Russia will stand to gain from a war between west and Iran the most.

What makes you say that? Care to give your own analysis of the situation?

Do you ever think before posting? Seriously, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico?

er.... you do know why I posted that dont you? Would you care to explain why you think its plausible Russia would invade Poland?

 

[RedRalph]

I'd love to hear your views on this Bast, geopoliticsophile that you are. I'm also willing to bet that you had been thinking this all along, and was just about to start a thread on it anyway, but as chance would have it, Winner beat you to the punch?

 

[Yeekim]

No, there are probably Mexican and Canadians who are afraid the US is going to invade them because it has offensive weapons too.

There are quite clearly places where US would (and does, actually) use its offensive weapons before Canada or Mexico.
Where do you think Russia could plausibly use their carrier?

 

[RedRalph]

There are quite clearly places where US would (and does, actually) use its offensive weapons before Canada or Mexico.
Where do you think Russia could plausibly use their carrier?

Many different places. Georgia most likely, considering the lunatic thats in charge of it. I just want you to specify exactly what you think is the problem here: Countries having offensive weapons or Russia having offensive weapons? Which is it?

 

[RedRalph]

Hey Bast, just giving you a headsup seeing as you appear to have forgotten to reply to my post. What's your analysis of Winner's hypothesis?

 

[Yeekim]

Many different places. Georgia most likely, considering the lunatic thats in charge of it. I just want you to specify exactly what you think is the problem here: Countries having offensive weapons or Russia having offensive weapons? Which is it?

In and by itself, neither is a problem.
The problem is what you insinuated in the other thread: just because Baltics (and Poland) are in NATO and EU, they will never ever again have to give any thought to their security.

 

[RedRalph]

In and by itself, neither is a problem.
The problem is what you insinuated in the other thread: just because Baltics (and Poland) are in NATO and EU, they will never ever again have to give any thought to their security.

Realistically, as long as both organisations exist, they won't.

 

[Winner]

No, there are probably Mexican and Canadians who are afraid the US is going to invade them because it has offensive weapons too.

The difference is that the US doesn't normally threaten these countries or has any long-standing disputes with them (well, its relationship with Mexico is a bit complicated, but for totally different reasons).

Russia is essentially a land-based power, it has always been one. When it starts (re)building up its amphibious capabilities, it is a threatening move to all countries with which Russia has rocky relations. See this thread for more info.

---

The problem is what you insinuated in the other thread: just because Baltics (and Poland) are in NATO and EU, they will never ever again have to give any thought to their security.

Realistically, as long as both organisations exist, they won't.

Totally false, see the thread I linked.

 

[RedRalph]

So as usual - one rule for Russia, another for everyone else...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

If I ever become President of Russia I am hiring you as a foreign policy adviser. This was a very impressively put together presentation, even if I'm not sure I ultimately agree with it.

 

[Winner]

If I ever become President of Russia I am hiring you as a foreign policy adviser. This was a very impressively put together presentation, even if I'm not sure I ultimately agree with it.

Deal Russia is one of the few countries where doing 'diplomacy' can actually be exciting

 

[Lord Saunders]

Look at the charts: the U.S. invasion of Iraq did almost nothing to the price of oil, and while Iran may produce twice as much, it's still only about 5% of world production... it would not be difficult for countries not hostile to the United States to increase production to make up for that deficit. If Russia were to provoke a war between the "West" (the U.S., Britain, and who?) and Iran, it seems that Riyadh would be the economic victor.

Iraq had no navy and therefore couldn't control the oil tankers from operating... However, Iran can causes serious headaches.

 

[Lord Saunders]

Many different places. Georgia most likely, considering the lunatic thats in charge of it. I just want you to specify exactly what you think is the problem here: Countries having offensive weapons or Russia having offensive weapons? Which is it?

Can you explain to me why Russia would use their carrier in a war against Georgia when they are neighbors? I would think that introducing their carrier (only one? Admiral Kuznetsov) in a potentialy dangerous situation unecessarily would not be that smart especially considering it is their only one. Georgia would fall over QUICK like it did in the last war with just a minimum amount of effort on Russias part.

On a second note. I'd like to hear some deliberations out there as to why Russia feels it needs to build a massive naval base in Syria. Seems to be very close to Israel... Any hidden strategic reason???

I'm interested in hearing your responses out there.

ALSO! Why the hell are we just talking about this interesting situation and not creating a mod or scenario with this in it???? I know we would all love to play it!

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think they would use it, but I'm no military tactician.

 

[ParkCungHee]

On a second note. I'd like to hear some deliberations out there as to why Russia feels it needs to build a massive naval base in Syria. Seems to be very close to Israel... Any hidden strategic reason???

Only the same one they've had for centuries. They have a fleet in Sevestapol but someone has unfortunately put Anatolia between them and the Mediterranean. For that fleet to be of any use other then threatening the mighty Romanian Navy, they need somewhere to stick it in the Mediterranean.

The difference is that the US doesn't normally threaten these countries or has any long-standing disputes with them

Are you kidding me? The U.S. has always, and still does, reserve the right to use military force in it's sphere of influence.