Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s

Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s

US President Barack Obama says Moscow does not want a war with Washington since it knows that the US military is “significantly superior” to Russia’s.

The Russians are “not interested in any kind of military confrontation with us, understanding that our conventional forces are significantly superior to the Russians,” Obama said during an interview with CBS News on Wednesday.

...What?

The hubris is deafening. How pathetic that the leader of the failing global empire is claiming that his country's military strength is so infallible, thus rival superpowers are too scared to challenge it.

This is the antithesis of international diplomacy. This is rhetoric that is not only extremely provocative to the Russians, but also jingoistic to the point where he expects Americans to support war against Russia.

And just for the record, the strength of conventional forces is such an old victory condition that really only applies to wars fought on one continent. What matters is geography and logistics. Russia is a regional hegemonic empire and the US is the global empire. The war between the USA and Russia will be fought near Russia. Geography and logistics would be in Russia's favour.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


...
...
...
Yeah, clearly Im impressed with the Presidents diplomatic prowess, perhaps someone should send him a copy.

a reply to: Vovin

Okay, obama thank you for pretty much letting me know you are doubtful of yourself.

The good ol fashion rapper dick talk tactic.

PS, those who didn't notice, Obama said his is 9000 feet long.

originally posted by: Vovin
How pathetic that the leader of the failing global empire is claiming that his country's military strength is so infallible, thus rival superpowers are too scared to challenge it.

originally posted by: benrl
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

LOL

Yes, there is something to be said about those two statements but I think the two of you may be missing it

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about how superior our military is without seeing any proof. If we're half as awesome as we claim to be then explain Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, The War on Terror, Etc. remember "shock and awe"? What a letdown that was. Remember MOABs? (Yawn)
Don't get me wrong. I believe that we have some tesla/alien wonderweapons but I also believe we will never use them for fighting a foreign army, they might as well not exist.

America has been bullying weaker nations since WWII and the only reason it has gotten away with it is because of the threat of nuclear annihilation. Not because we are better conventionally because we lost in Korea, Vietnam and currently in Afghanistan. But because the ultimate threat of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented bigger nations like the Soviet Union from being pushed into a direct confrontation.

Do we still think we are better than them? Question is, do they?

Well, he's not wrong. US conventional forces are drastically superior to the Russians. This isn't even an opinion, it's fact. They're still operating 1980's Soviet tech. Putin is trying to modernize his military, but as he does so are the Americans.

originally posted by: 4TheHighCyde20
Well, he's not wrong. US conventional forces are drastically superior to the Russians. This isn't even an opinion, it's fact. They're still operating 1980's Soviet tech. Putin is trying to modernize his military, but as he does so are the Americans.

Pretty much this. All of these doom-sayers know very little about the way the world works, claiming that Russia is trying to antagonize the west is sheer idiocy. Either they aren't, or they are and they're stupid, which is untrue. Only your average 6th-grader would think Russia would attempt to revive the Soviet Union in this day and age, let alone be able to do so. The US/NATO/EU pretty much control the world right now.

The United States hasn't fought a real enemy in decades. Beating up on 3rd world militaries and goat herders with AKs' and IED's is nothing. Russia actually has one of the most sophisticated miiltaries in the world. Of course it's not at the level or on the same scale as the US as they spend probably 1/6 of what we do per year on their military. Can we say MiGs, S400s, P-800 anti ship missiles? Obama and Biden are a disgrace and so are any Americans that are supporting this current administration. If send troops to Ukraine and engage Russia it will be a bloody war that America has no stomach for. The Russians are tough people and will be fighting to protect their homeland, economy, etc. What will the US troops be fighting for? Another government overthrow?

originally posted by: 4TheHighCyde20
Well, he's not wrong. US conventional forces are drastically superior to the Russians. This isn't even an opinion, it's fact. They're still operating 1980's Soviet tech. Putin is trying to modernize his military, but as he does so are the Americans.

Doesn't matter, 20,000 nuclear warheads is enough to bring any world to it's knees and Russia has that ability regardless of how old their tech is.

a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

Russia throughout history has been one of the hardest countries to penetrate and even Hitler had to turn around. Russia are no push overs that's for sure.

a reply to: 4TheHighCyde20

So what? You think Russian would follow the same rules of engagments as we have in Iraq and Astan? Our ROE are a joke and have cost lives. Our troops are controlled by politics and lawyers. You think Russia wouldn't use devastating guerrilla and insurgency type tactics? America doesn't even have enough manufacturing in home to produce soap. Russia has some of the largest most sophisticated gas and oil technology in the world. Going to war with Russia on their soil would be a fricking logistical nightmare. There is no way Russia could take on the west i.e. NATO and the USA. But if the USA took on Russia alone it would not be a cakewalk. Military spending and fancy equipment means nothing. Russia plays dirty and rightfully so against a bigger stronger opponent.

The key word was "conventional". We may have the most tanks and air fighters. But America and Russia have the biggest collection of nuclear warheads aimed at each from any other opposing countries. One or two nuclear hits from either side would be devastating economically, socially, environmentally and even spiritually.

Very ballsy! I would appreciate this statement, its a dirty bird with a fist pump, but I think Putin may be inclined to call his bluff. Unfortunately, I think it is little more than a bluff.

a reply to: Vovin

It's like they are really trying to provoke WWIII. Our government is filled with the criminally insane.
Why are they so effin obsessed with starting wars everywhere?? Citizens are terrorists. Instigating coups. Complete large media control. Bankster scams. Russia burning the reichstag (I mean Ukraine) War is profit. War is profit. War is profit.

STOP

The way the global economy is failing, there is no option but war to distract the masses from their collective misery.

Maybe we're all just bored stupid or just forgetful.

WW3 is coming because nearly all who fought it are gone, and forgetfulness has set in once again.

Ask anyone who has been in combat, they will tell you it ain't no place anyone wants to be, myself included.

These provocative words from our dummy president....he knows exactly the response that will come.

It's just a game to the guys running the show.

No Mitten Grabben...No Button Pushen...

.............

originally posted by: 4TheHighCyde20
Well, he's not wrong. US conventional forces are drastically superior to the Russians. This isn't even an opinion, it's fact. They're still operating 1980's Soviet tech. Putin is trying to modernize his military, but as he does so are the Americans.

yup and that fact is a fair chunk of the reason the US keeps loosing. the US is far too reliant on superior weapons. superior weaponry is only a part of the equation, and more a minor one than major. it is how one USES weapons that is the key factor in winning. if advanced weaponry was the key to victory, the Germans would have won WW2, the Americans would have won in Viet Nam, the Russians would have won in Afghanistan etc. yet forces with advanced weaponry have a habit of LOOSING WARS. and a large portion of that is due to bad strategy and reliance on "superior equipment". why do technically inferior guerrilla forces do so well, especially against forces with superior weapons?

i wonder did Russia learn from Afghanistan what the US has never learned?

a reply to: Vovin

Let's assume he meant superior in convetional warfare, since MAD still assures just that - no one wins nuclear WWIII.

So let's assume he meant technologically superior then...
I just want to say that Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WWII were technologically FAR superior to the red army... didn't help much.

Why? Well, except for the Brits breaking German air superiority, the Russians have one very scary tactic in their arsenal: they drown their enemies in their own corpses. Literally.

I still think NATO's logistics and strategic management structure is the most powerful military force of our time, but all out war with Russia would change the face of this planet for sure.

originally posted by: 4TheHighCyde20
Well, he's not wrong. US conventional forces are drastically superior to the Russians. This isn't even an opinion, it's fact. They're still operating 1980's Soviet tech. Putin is trying to modernize his military, but as he does so are the Americans.

Please explain what "1980s Soviet tech" the Russians are still using, and if true, please explain why the designs would have to be improved.

And before you get ahead of yourself you should know that Soviet design and deployment strategies were significantly different from American, and even modern Russian philosophies. There's a damn good reason why Russia deploys older equipment at home while showing off newer designs for the export market.

Yeah hey, it's about boots on the ground and not batteries (Nicads or whatever).

Technology always fails, good old grunts always prevail.

The Russians learned all about asymmetrical warfare, the U.S. for some reason failed to.

a reply to: generik