Usa seem to be doing the exact same thing, what’s your plan to defend from usa if they decide to invade your country like they did with iraq?
We don’t live right next to the US and haven’t had to deal with their bullying and hostility for gods’ knows how long. So Russia seems a tad more likely candidate to attack us. But the military isn’t just for a single target, even if that target is the most likely one. So the strategy I assume would be similar in very broad strokes of utilizing a large, trained reservist pool to fight the US.
Russia invasions are made possible thanks to billions of public money spent on weapons and because of mandatory conscription. If your goal is peace and not invading other countries you want to do the opposite of what they are doing.
So what would that be, spend very little on defence and rely on just a volunteer army?
If someone decides to attack you, you will defend yourself better as a free man not as a chained slave
Pretty unfortunate if reliance on just that ends up with me being an even worse sort of slave, this time to Russian masters.
So what would that be, spend very little on defence and rely on just a volunteer army?
If someone doesn’t want to volunteer for you out of their own choice you are probably evil
Pretty unfortunate if reliance on just that ends up with me being an even worse sort of slave, this time to Russian masters.
Your assumption is that being forced to fight by a corrupted government somehow makes you a stronger fighter and that not being limited by anyone somehow makes you automatically lose. This is absolutely true for politicians because the moment nobody fights for them their rule is over.
Too bad that was the only argument for why Russia is the one that’s a bit more likely to attack us. You got me there, USA is the one that we definitely should be talking about.’
If someone doesn’t want to volunteer for you out of their own choice you are probably evil
I think that makes everyone evil, which does level the playing field I suppose.
Your assumption is that being forced to fight by a corrupted government somehow makes you a stronger fighter and that not being limited by anyone somehow makes you automatically lose.
No, that’s not my assumption at all. The whole discussion is about country level capabilities, not their strength of will or so such thing.
We don’t live right next to the US and haven’t had to deal with their bullying and hostility for gods’ knows how long. So Russia seems a tad more likely candidate to attack us. But the military isn’t just for a single target, even if that target is the most likely one. So the strategy I assume would be similar in very broad strokes of utilizing a large, trained reservist pool to fight the US.
So what would that be, spend very little on defence and rely on just a volunteer army?
Pretty unfortunate if reliance on just that ends up with me being an even worse sort of slave, this time to Russian masters.
Neither does iraq
If someone doesn’t want to volunteer for you out of their own choice you are probably evil
Your assumption is that being forced to fight by a corrupted government somehow makes you a stronger fighter and that not being limited by anyone somehow makes you automatically lose. This is absolutely true for politicians because the moment nobody fights for them their rule is over.
Too bad that was the only argument for why Russia is the one that’s a bit more likely to attack us. You got me there, USA is the one that we definitely should be talking about.’
I think that makes everyone evil, which does level the playing field I suppose.
No, that’s not my assumption at all. The whole discussion is about country level capabilities, not their strength of will or so such thing.