Rumblings pointing to the commencement of WW III !

Russia has begun deploying advanced anti-missile systems in Belarus, near NATO’s Eastern borders, in response to the continuing expansion of the Atlantic alliance to the East.
The first batch of four S-300PS mobile surface-to-air missiles batteries consisting of 24 missile launchers arrived in Belarus over the weekend.
The S-300PS is an all altitude air defense system capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles at a range in excess of 90 km.

Russia’s defense minister Sergei Ivanov warned:
“ In the event of a clear violation of the balance of forces near our borders, we reserve the lawful right to take all necessary measures to ensure the reliability of our national security.”

The US and its Western allies are hell-bent on expanding NATO further towards the East, which threatens Russia’s national security interests. But Russia, seeing through the Western (read American) game plan, is now reinforcing its western front with WMD and upgrading its ICBMs and operationalising its underground bases at its Western and North borders at a frenetic pace to thwart American designs.

These are surefire battle indicators for the commencement of WW III.

The Russo-American party is finally over!

More.....
www.hindu.com...




[edit on 24-4-2006 by mikesingh]

That or it's just saber rattling by the Russian. They are not in the position to confront NATO forces, Just to make a lot of noise.
Although I must say that this is not the only aggressive move that the Ruskies have made as of late.

Russia has numbers remember? Think back to WW2, Germany had a FAR better army than Russia ever had but was stopped cold because the Russian warmachine was able to gear up and move out. Numbers are nothing to these people, they will gladly throw 3 million people at you just to keep you held back long enough to deploy strong counter measures to stop your army cold and China does the same. When you fight people who dont care about casualties you are screwed if you dont have enough people to hold them back. Now for you people who think america is invincible: It does not matter how much technology you have, numbers can still thwart it, america does not have the best technology in the world, it just has the technology it needs to keep enemies out of its own land nothing more, nothing less. Russia and every nation in the world follows along these lines in some way, yes their technology might not be stealth, but do they need it in the end? If they can field 3 million troops and not care about it and you can only field 200,000 for a whole nation do they really need to worry about advanced technology? No, they get a level of technology sufficient to kill, then mass produce it and ship it to the front and swarm attack you to no end.
Wave attack wars are not over, we are slowly grinding towards that point again as other nations develop counters to each others technology, soon they will be forced into a bloodly "hand to hand" war where missiles and artillery meen nothing because they are unable to even be launched due to counter measures.

Vekar
Yes you are right that there still is a threat from Russia, with cheap but effective tech.
The U.S. military is not set up for a war of aggression, it has been developed a a defensive force. Hence the loss in Vietnam and the current quagmire of Iraq. If the U.S. were to invade Russia or China they would be soundly defeated with out question. But if Russia were to attack into Europe they would be the ones defeated. The days of walking in and conquering other nations on a large scale are over. The potency of the civilians in a insurgent/freedom fighter role, terrorist tactics have proven to powerful to ignore.
Also I do think that you overestimate Russia's willingness to take causalities they have pulled out of Chechnya before and agreed to ceasefires due to their losses.

They pull out when there is nothing left but a smoldering crater, which is what happened in most cases, bombed it to heck, then left. Russian history is marred with the use of conscipts to fight off an enemy untill a real force can be trained, and the chance to have a GOOD justification to do so would allow their economy to be brought back up to speed again. Russian economy has alwasys been based on production and if NATO tries anything this will give them the oppurtunity to rally up their people and draft like mad. Sick, pathetic, but thats how wars go anymore, a chance to make money and in their case revive the economy by making jobs unlike in america where those jobs are hired out or use 90% machines so they dont have to pay anyone anything.
No country in the world has kept pushing invasion when they are loosing allot of people for no reason, hence the british backed out of India, they were able to control the nation by other means in the end. Or the US leaving Vietnam, the corporation was not making money, and now Vietnam imports allot of american products or I should say products made by american corporations but made in china so in the end they got what they wanted then left.
A wise leader wont pass up the oppurtunity to rally his/her people when war might be comming, especially if their economy needs a boost and war production would do it. The fact Russia has remained calm since the cold war shows they are no longer in interest of invading others, they are busy trying to rebuild what they have left. None the less they wont stand asside when invasion is looming over the horizon. Countries dont mind backing out if the fight is not INSIDE their nation or near their captial, Russia during WW2 had to fight off the German army at Stalingrad which was a mite to close to Moscow for their liking. Hence they drafted millions and sent them to the meat grinder to hold the Germans off untill the real Russian army was able to form up and counter attack. Russia wont hesitate to do the same if they are faced with defeat and a combined force of NATO would give them sufficient reason to do so if things didnt go as planned in the first few battles or hours.
Never underestimate how far your opponent is willing to go to preserve their nation.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Vekar
Yes you are right that there still is a threat from Russia, with cheap but effective tech.
The U.S. military is not set up for a war of aggression, it has been developed a a defensive force. Hence the loss in Vietnam and the current quagmire of Iraq. If the U.S. were to invade Russia or China they would be soundly defeated with out question. But if Russia were to attack into Europe they would be the ones defeated. The days of walking in and conquering other nations on a large scale are over. The potency of the civilians in a insurgent/freedom fighter role, terrorist tactics have proven to powerful to ignore.
Also I do think that you overestimate Russia's willingness to take causalities they have pulled out of Chechnya before and agreed to ceasefires due to their losses.

What makes you say it wasnt created for offensive capability, thats the opposite of what our military can do. The loss in Vietnam(which was a war of defense, not offense by the way) was due the fact that we were fighting with one hand behind our backs due to politics, and by the time that hand was let loose it was too late. If the bombing of Hanoi had been allowed sooner the NVA and VC wouldnt have had they supplies they had to fight at all. Iraq isnt a quagmire, if you noticed the mission the military was set there to do is accomplished. The military went to Iraq, defeated their military, and occupied their nation, theres not much more you can do besides maybe destroying the country completely, which isnt what were there to do. Numbers dont mean what they used to anymore, you say the numbers defeat technology, while I say thats a falisty.

Why? Becasue technology has increased the effectiveness of even the individual soldier let alone a tank platoon, a mechanized infantry division, or just a squad of soldiers. I would be willing to bet a squat today has double the firepower and effectiveness of a company during WW2. Better weapons, technology, training, and uptodate tactics of the last 2 decades have led to this.

Look at Somalia, it was a defeat some say, but look at what we had, 160 men and twelve vehicles(hummves; no armor or even helo gunships) and these men held out for a night when surrounded by thousands of Samalis. There were an estimated 1000 Somali militia casualties with aroudn 3000-4000 wounded. That shows you what a small attack force can do. 160 vs. say 5 thousand(total), most of the 160 made it back home in one piece. But I will say the next day they were rescued by a joint force of US 10th Mountain, Maylay, and Pakistani forces who had armor.

If the US were to invade China or Russia, I dont know what would happen, I dont think you can say they would be defeated easily even with guerilla style tactics. In iraq weve had around 2500 dead in the past 3 years our of the roughly 240,000 personnel that are there. And the insurgency says they are winning. Thats about 1% casualties(dead) isnt it? I would say if the US were to assault Russia or China, it would use different tactics than it used in Iraq, I think they day of leveling a city would come back. It wouldnt be close to the same as Iraq. Due to the different terrain and type of war it would be.

LC
Sorry but I must disagree,
The American military philosophy is all based on fire power and close air support, vary costly in fuel and ammo. The theory being that if the soldiers throw enough bullets at the enemy that they'll kill the and if that does not work that drop a bomb in a air strike. Don't get me wrong it's fine stratagem, and it worked on the offense against Iraq, but lets see how long supplies would last in a fight with Russia or China.
As for Somalia, we were in a fight against a largely untrained force who spent most of their time standing around watching not fighting using proper tactics. Although I will say who ever was firing those RPGs did a damn fine job with them.
I don't by the way mean that the U.S. military is not meant to go on offensive campaigns, that is what armies are for. What I'm saying is that it is not meant to go on wars of conquest, gallivanting about taking others over and then occupies them. It is not set up for that task.

Russia needs all the help in the world right now, they're shambled up from the Cold War. If they gotta do some saber rattling to get some attention money, they're going to do it. They're already picking off of China and Iran the best they can and who knows WHAT ELSE.

In addition to what I have mentioned in the introductory post, it is now a fact that the US has returned to the old Cold War rhetoric.
This has been provoked largely to Moscow’s increasingly assertive foreign policy and determined upholding of its national interests.
Washington knows that it can do precious little to bring Moscow to heel.
Take a look at why this transformation has taken place:

> Russia no longer needs Western credits with its economy rebounding and its coffers bursting at the seams from record oil exports.

> Russia has been repaying the multi billion dollar loans taken by Boris Yeltsin from the West, ahead of schedule.

> When the US tried to spike Russia’s entry into the WTO, it retaliated by ditching Boeing in favor of the Airbus for the purchase of two dozen long-distance airliners and threatened to cut out American oil companies from lucrative natural gas projects in Russia.

And of course there’s Dick Cheney who’s hell bent on spoiling the party by engaging in Russia-baiting in Vilnius, by trying to knock together a regional grouping of former Soviet states and new EU members in Eastern Europe to encircle Russia and hamper its emerging axis with Germany and France.

Here, he praised the Georgian and Ukrainian leaders as heroes of our times, while denouncing Russia as an enemy of democratic change.

But perhaps a return to a limited cold war status is a good thing after all. A unipolar world is fraught with danger. We can see America, presently the world’s only super power, running rough shod over all and sundry with the aim of making a World Order to suit its own design and structure.

With Russia emerging once again as the other pole, it will be a credible counterweight to American ‘world domination’.

Or would they be on course for a clash of strategic and geo-political interests, heading for the unthinkable………. WW III?

P.S. Remember what Nostradamus has said? “…and lightning strikes from the East”!
You guys figure that out!

With all due respect, I'm not sure that Russia and the U.S. are destined to make war on each other...at this time. As a trained political scientist and historian, I do think we are seeing the friction between major powers, and the shockwaves that result.

Russis is bumping heads with NATO. There can be no question of what. Some day, I can see a conflict that pits Russia against NATO. In that situation, it's not clear that Russia would lose.

Bush and Putin are clearly fighting over dominance in the region. Russia is a big country, with a lot on their borders. It's not out of line to suggest that Russian officials are trying to make the most of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran. they stand to make billions in military or private sector sales...no matter which way this thing goes.

I think it would be in Russia's best interest to goad the U.S. in to a war with Iran. the long-term benefits to the leadership in Moscow would be immense. And yes, you could think of the Iranian war as payback from Russia to the Americans for Afghanistan in the 1980's.