Russia Vs China

[HamaticBabylon]

They are both communist dogs and both violates human rights....they are both despotic in nature and cowards in failure! Down with china and Down with Russia!



But, Russia may win if the E.U got involved!

 

[sourboy]

Interesting principle, but the only true head-to-head fights these days occur on hockey rinks. America, Europe, and Japan would likely be united in this affair as it would a precursor flirt with WWIII.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The Ural Mountains are over-estimated, its highest peak is the evil Naroda Mountain culminating at 1,895m... Corsica is a small island of the Mediterranean which is half the size of New Jersey and it culminates at 2,500 m !!

Well, having a few high peaks isn't the point, and it isn't the reason why they are or aren't are a barrier. They are a barrier because they are a long, dense range, thickly forested, with few natural passes. They were produced when Siberia crashed into Eurasia-N.America (Laurasia & Gondwana) about 300 million years ago. The Russians did not first cross them unit 1580 with the Stroganov-sponsored Yermak expedition (although, some Novgorodian fur-trappers probably crossed before) ventured across into Siberia.

They wouldn't be a barrier to the Chinese of course, because they can be by-passed through the steppe to the south.

Nah, they should be called the "Ural Hills" but as European geographs knew the political importance of showing geographically Europe as an independent continent, they've invented that limit which is far less obvious than in the case of India... which is supposed to be only a sub-continent.

Erm...I'm less ready to condemn the geographers of the past as politically motivated. All the Eurasia-African continents are arbitrary. Medieval and early modern European geographers were influenced by classical models, which although had great significance to ancient Greeks, was meaningless to moderns. Africa, for instance, is just as arbitrary as Europe. They had to reinterpret tradition, and the Urals, being the natural end of the Northern European Plain and and the only barrier capable of dividing Eurasia, were chosen.

 

[thestonesfan]

If China INVADED Russia, it would be a mass slaughter with Russia on top. China would get all over-anxious and make some major-league screw-ups.

 

[stormbind]

Russia, since they know Chinese capabilities like the back of their hand.

Also, what has China in the way of arctic assets?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Actually, I'm not so sure about this. Russia is supposed to have 8,000 nuke heads (with almost half who don't work anymore), and China has 500 nuke heads. Considering that Chinese population is 10 times larger, I would bet there would be more Chinese surviving than Russians.

Not likely. China's smaller, crappier nukes have a much larger area to cover in order to wipe out the Russians. The Russians larger more numerous nukes could blanket every square inch of Chinese territory. You would be hard pressed to find any survivors.

 

[stormbind]

Not likely. China's smaller, crappier nukes have a much larger area to cover in order to wipe out the Russians. The Russians larger more numerous nukes could blanket every square inch of Chinese territory. You would be hard pressed to find any survivors.

... anywhere on the planet

 

[stratego]

Are we forgetting that just 15 years ago Russia had the second to the most power military in the world? China wouldn't be able to beat Russia. I think whoever is fighting the offense would lose.

 

[Arminius]

Russia still has a massive military, and has proven time and again, that when invaded, it can and will resist the intruders at any cost. No nation could take down Russia, not ever, and certainly not now. Even the Americans would have their asses handed to them.

I laugh in your face. When was that? Napoleon? The rest of Europe was supporting Russia. World War I? If the Communist had not ended the conflict, German would be spoken in most of Eastern Europe. World War II? Now the whole world was propping Russia up. If FDR hadn't pulled rabbits out of his hat to give Russia money and weapons, Stalin would have been captured by Hitler's little minions.

On topic, China would own Russia.

 

[Quasar1011]

lol I think so too. The future belongs to the Chinese. Lets hold on long enough .

Actually, both the Russian and Chinese armies will someday be obliterated by... Israel.

 

[Gelion]

I laugh in your face. When was that? Napoleon? The rest of Europe was supporting Russia. World War I? If the Communist had not ended the conflict, German would be spoken in most of Eastern Europe. World War II? Now the whole world was propping Russia up. If FDR hadn't pulled rabbits out of his hat to give Russia money and weapons, Stalin would have been captured by Hitler's little minions.

On topic, China would own Russia.

I laugh at your ignorace in world history. Read some books. About Russo-Turkish or World War 1 for example. And then read my previous posts...
Not to mention who was ever supporting Russia in the war against Napoleon? I though the whole Europe (-GB) fought with him.
But your knowledge does not deserve such a long post anyway, so I stop here.

 

[Steph]

I laugh at your ignorace in world history. Read some books. About Russo-Turkish or World War 1 for example. And then read my previous posts...
Not to mention who was ever supporting Russia in the war against Napoleon? I though the whole Europe (-GB) fought with him.
But your knowledge does not deserve such a long post anyway, so I stop here.

Spain. England. Prussia was quick to turn side.
The only real battle was Boridino, which was a slight French victory.
The real reason of the defeat was Winter and supply lines, along with the fact the Russians avoid the confrontation, and were ready to sacrifice everything to wait for the French to simply have to withdraw and lose.
IMHO the mistake of Napoleon here was to come with an army that was TO BIG.

 

[Arminius]

I laugh at your ignorace in world history. Read some books. About Russo-Turkish or World War 1 for example. And then read my previous posts...
Not to mention who was ever supporting Russia in the war against Napoleon? I though the whole Europe (-GB) fought with him.
But your knowledge does not deserve such a long post anyway, so I stop here.

The Turks and the Russians were both miserable. Neither really ever got the upper hand. (or rather, if they did, someone on the outside got involved.) And I concede that if the UK isn't counted, Europe could not support Russia, since it had all been repressed by Napoleon. This does not mean that the peoples of Europe were not helping the Russians, revolt anywhere drew away from Napoleon's power. I must ask if this means that the UK is ineligible to be part of the EU, since it is, by your definition, not European?

 

[Gelion]

First of all I'd like to ask where you are from so that I know faults of which country to bring up.
Second Russia often fought and won wars against the Turcs with far inferior numbers on its own. Have you heard of Suvorov? Well if you haven't he was a Russian general who did not loose a single battle. Napoleon was almost like him. He fought and won a small war against france in Italy and Switzerland (the Swiss at least remember). With inferior numbers again, not knowing the terrain and so on. He was the second general to "repeat the road of Hannibal" and beat the enemy on that road.
Thidrly your point about "uprisings in Europe" doesn't make sence. This way any uprising anywhere in the French Empire can be counted. Also any uprising in the Russian Empire can be counted for Napoleon. If you apply this principle of yours to any bigs wars you can see that no country ever fought alone.
The reason I excluded GB is cuz the British could not do anything except make a blockade. After Napolen got kicked out of Russia, the Brish finally decided to show up on the big battlefields. So did Austrians and Prussians who were beaten before.
As for ww1 please give me some statistic regarging Allied help to Russia. The only thing I can think of now is Gallipoli expedition. No men or arms I know of. It was the russians who sent 40000 men to france when the French asked for them in 1916 or 1917. For that matter Russia was fighting 3 enemies at once in ww1: Ger+A-H+Turkey when GB and Fr were fighting only Germany.

Please try to make a difference between EU and Europe. Will help you in life.

And please be a little smarter and reply to all of my arguments or none at all

 

[Steph]

France and GB fought also against Turkey. You mentionned Galipoli. There was also fighting in Middle East (remember of Lawrence of Arabia?), or in Africa.
However, you are right the main figthing were against Germany.
So you fought 3 ennemies, but were not alone to do this.
Austria fought against Italy and Serbia.
Turkey fought against Balkan states, France and GB.
Germany against France, GB.

 

[Gelion]

You are correct
Here is some info on the Russo-Turkish Wars:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ru/RussoTur.html
Russia did indeed mostly fought with allies, but most significant victories (esp. on sea) were scored alone.

 

[Arminius]

First of all I'd like to ask where you are from so that I know faults of which country to bring up.

USA, and you don't have to bring up my country's faults, because most of them are printed in my country's newspapers somewhere along the way.

Second Russia often fought and won wars against the Turks with far inferior numbers on its own. Have you heard of Suvorov? Well if you haven't he was a Russian general who did not loose a single battle. Napoleon was almost like him. He fought and won a small war against france in Italy and Switzerland (the Swiss at least remember). With inferior numbers again, not knowing the terrain and so on. He was the second general to "repeat the road of Hannibal" and beat the enemy on that road.

I have, and I'm not sure he matters. This is an argument to prove that Russia can defend itself against China? The Chinese are not going to stop even with massive casualties. You are talking about a Soviet-style military.

Thidrly your point about "uprisings in Europe" doesn't make sence. This way any uprising anywhere in the French Empire can be counted. Also any uprising in the Russian Empire can be counted for Napoleon. If you apply this principle of yours to any bigs wars you can see that no country ever fought alone.

I don't count just any insurrection. Only the ones that have rebel ARMIES marching against a country. Spain, anyone? So, let's be a little smarter and not misrepresent our opponent's views.

The reason I excluded GB is cuz the British could not do anything except make a blockade. After Napolen got kicked out of Russia, the Brish finally decided to show up on the big battlefields. So did Austrians and Prussians who were beaten before.

Do you think the blockade was useless? I think it helped. As for the Austrians and Prussians, they had to be 'liberated' before they could help.

As for ww1 please give me some statistic regarging Allied help to Russia. The only thing I can think of now is Gallipoli expedition. No men or arms I know of. It was the russians who sent 40000 men to france when the French asked for them in 1916 or 1917. For that matter Russia was fighting 3 enemies at once in ww1: Ger+A-H+Turkey when GB and Fr were fighting only Germany.

Making the Germans fight on two fronts wasn't helpful to Russia? Or was it only helpful on the Western Front? The Italian escapade doesn't count? As for Russia's kindness in 1916, I'm sure it was appreciated.

Please try to make a difference between EU and Europe. Will help you in life.

I will, but you should know that was a joke, in reference to Egypt.

And please be a little smarter and reply to all of my arguments or none at all

How'd I do this time? BTW, I would appreciate it if you would do likewise.

 

[Gelion]

LOL
Now to your arguments:
I'm glad your newspapers print what has happened to your country. I hope your history books also tell you about your history like they do around the world. Also thanks for the spelling .
You were the one who started to talk about Russian military (not Soviet) claiming that its not good. So I think Suvorov does matter and I'm glad you've heard of him. I'm not saying that you are "off topic" I'm saying that in the history of war all war history matters.

Well if you want numbers the French had over 600,000 men against a little under 300,000 Russians. The Revolt in Spain did maybe help, but did the Spainish march against Paris? It was an inernal matter of pro-French Spainish Kingdom. It would be great if you can provide the number of men involved I'd be one happy Elf.
I do think the blockad helped. I also do think that Russia beat 600,000-strong French army after which the downfall of Napoleon really begun. Nor Austria nor Prussia were occupied by French forces by the way. They sided with France after they were defeated and switched back again after Napoleon was thrown out of Russia. I don't think I need to say more.
As for the Russian Winter - (as I said before). If you are uncapable of dealing with your army supply - you are no general, you are an idiot.
Well my point was that Russia never recieved any actual help in ww1 in men or arms. I would've preferred you to find some figures disproving it. You didn't as yet so I assume you agree with me on this point. For that matter Russia helped save France by charging on the Germans in 1914 and German armies had to be transferred to the Eastern Front. For that matter Russia had more men fighting all 3 enemies than any other country. GB anf Fr cound've filelded a bigger army from colonies if you will say that Russia is big enough to reqruit 12 million.
I did not get the joke . Explain?
You are doing better, keep trying .

EDIT: Btw your avy says Tiger of Fire in Russian ...

 

[Nobody]

France and GB fought also against Turkey

When we talk of this we must also mention the ANZACs

 

[Arminius]

I never claim it wasn't good. I just claim it wasn't good enough!
The Spanish Insurrection bleed Napoleon of useful veterans. You'll notice occupied is written "occupied" in my posts. This is a reference to what the situation is commonly explained as. You are correct, they were not truly occupied, but were basically knocked out of the picture, and Napoleon was allowed to walk all over them. As for WWI, I agree, Russia received no arms. But moral support, and a battle-buddy go along way.

The joke? The joke is that some people are talking about getting Egypt into the EU. I find that absurd, and rediculous.

Thank you for your kinds words.

EDIT: I know, I speak a little Russian. Truthfully, I enjoy Russia and all her quirks, but if you refer to the beginning of my post, you'll understand I think this is a conflict she can't win.