I suppose I’m mistaken but I had always thought the US had the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons - by far. I remember hearing that the missile gap in the Cold War was a bit of a myth created by the Kennedy Admin and that the real missile gap was the other way around: the US had something like an order of magnitude more nukes than the Russians, who actually did not have many. But the narrative that the Russians had a lot helped fuel US arms-race build-up.
Am I completely wrong? Or is it just that a lot has changed since 1961? Or is the case that the US has more overall but the Russians have more low-yield nukes?
A correction. Flight MH17 was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down, by ‘unknown’ agents.
Otherwise I generally agree. Russia’s military has had an appalling reputation, with many reports of violence against new conscripts leading to widespread public anger. Putin has obviously settled on reducing a reliance on it, beefing his armoury with cyber and covert ops, such as the little green men. Additionally he has the shady Wagner private army at his call, to do the things that he or his global supporters need without any recourse to the Kremlin.
I disagree on the Baltic’s, but only slightly. My friends there have always maintained that they would defend themselves against any Russian aggression, and despite the large numbers of ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia, it is likely that any Russian attempts at interference would be at the cyber and disinformation level rather than outright aggression that would trigger a military response. Indeed, there have been a number of attacks on the cyber infrastructure of the three states. There is no Baltic Sudetenland.
The Baltic Republics are indefensible. However, what would Putin gain by occupying them? Russian is counting on commercial agreements with Europe for the sale of hydrocarbon products. Unless the Russians are provoked, it is unlikely they will invade the Baltic states. Putin is a leader that one can negotiate with. Unfortunately, America's domestic problems are so severe that they will be the paramount concern of the government over the next decade or so.
I understand the occupations of Georgian and Ukrainian territory. I don't know or understand how Transdneister benefits Russia. Is it just a base of operations for the southern Slav lands?
I suppose I’m mistaken but I had always thought the US had the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons - by far. I remember hearing that the missile gap in the Cold War was a bit of a myth created by the Kennedy Admin and that the real missile gap was the other way around: the US had something like an order of magnitude more nukes than the Russians, who actually did not have many. But the narrative that the Russians had a lot helped fuel US arms-race build-up.
Am I completely wrong? Or is it just that a lot has changed since 1961? Or is the case that the US has more overall but the Russians have more low-yield nukes?
A correction. Flight MH17 was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down, by ‘unknown’ agents.
Otherwise I generally agree. Russia’s military has had an appalling reputation, with many reports of violence against new conscripts leading to widespread public anger. Putin has obviously settled on reducing a reliance on it, beefing his armoury with cyber and covert ops, such as the little green men. Additionally he has the shady Wagner private army at his call, to do the things that he or his global supporters need without any recourse to the Kremlin.
I disagree on the Baltic’s, but only slightly. My friends there have always maintained that they would defend themselves against any Russian aggression, and despite the large numbers of ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia, it is likely that any Russian attempts at interference would be at the cyber and disinformation level rather than outright aggression that would trigger a military response. Indeed, there have been a number of attacks on the cyber infrastructure of the three states. There is no Baltic Sudetenland.
The Baltic Republics are indefensible. However, what would Putin gain by occupying them? Russian is counting on commercial agreements with Europe for the sale of hydrocarbon products. Unless the Russians are provoked, it is unlikely they will invade the Baltic states. Putin is a leader that one can negotiate with. Unfortunately, America's domestic problems are so severe that they will be the paramount concern of the government over the next decade or so.
I understand the occupations of Georgian and Ukrainian territory. I don't know or understand how Transdneister benefits Russia. Is it just a base of operations for the southern Slav lands?