Russia - threadbanned users in OP

That's the usual deflection.. but let's run with it. The US has been very active in world affairs since WW2. They went "all in" in their fight against communism, and stood against the Soviet Union, and later, Russia throughout that time. They've worked to isolate Russia, while playing the popular card as a peacemaker, but the military/diplomatic strategy of isolating Russia has continued. Of course, they're partly, responsible.

It is natural that comparisons would be drawn between the US and Russia, for all manner of reasons. It's just when the negatives associated with the US come out, that we hear this deflection, that it's all America's fault. Which I doubt anyone is suggesting, but the belief that they're not somewhat responsible, considering their contributions to world diplomacy, and active participation in a wide number of conflicts, is naive.

Which leads to a contradiction Russia is simultaneously great and not great often in same sentences, which I believe is subconscious admission that it’s the deepest shithole among a collection of shitholes

I doubt you've traveled much around the world if you think that. There's far worse places that Russia. It's a great nation, in terms of history, just as Britain/England is a great nation due to their history. However, in a modern sense, they've both fallen well behind their historical accomplishments. The Russian Empire was an incredibly power force in world affairs for centuries. That's why they were great.

As for the great and no great being contained within the same sentence, you'll find that with most nations. They all have their downsides, and positives. Some more so, than others.. but this comes back to my point about double standards. Take the US for example, look at their numbers of homeless, their numbers addicted to various drugs, their illiteracy problems, the issues with parts of the US being essentially like 3rd world nations in terms of infrastructure, institutionalized racial discrimination, etc... Both great and not so great at the same time.

Oh, I completely agree. However, with Taiwan, the CCP have made such a big deal about it over 6 decades, that I doubt they'd let it go. Chinese culture would never allow such a thing. Its always going to be someone elses fault.

China, Russia, and whatever other country out there that claims land, and seeks to expand are opportunists. If the opportunity is there, they'll go for it. Taiwan is pretty much locked down now, due to China isolating themselves, and pissing off all their neighbors. Russia will likely grab a variety of nearby nation states, because nobody is really that interested. Ukraine is something different, but even then, I genuinely doubt anyone will step in to protect them. If it came to Poland/Finland, or other Baltic states, I suspect Russia wouldn't try anything because of the solid links between those countries and Europe. They missed their chance there.

The USSR gave up that land. The Russians invaded Crimea because it’s a Russian enclave.

any conflict here and Europe will freeze this winter. I’ve just got another increase in my electricity bill. It’s up about 30% now.

Look, European forces are sub-par but they're still not terrible. Poland has also increased it's military spending, and has realised most of their weaknesses after their last war games, so between Poland's new alertness, and Europe's own military forces, that's enough to stop Russia from doing anything to them. Regardless of whether the US gets involved or not, invading European territory is just not worth the consequences.

Russia will aim to take the Ukraine because nobody is going to stand up for them. Beyond that though, I seriously doubt Russia will go further west.

Winning a war against Europe by Russia is probably possible... but what comes after? Occupation of European territories by Russia would bring about a world of pain, both economically, the risks involved by resistance groups, and the social resistance that's likely to occur. Russia wouldn't be able to implement the total warfare and harsh occupation methods they've applied elsewhere... it would be suicide.

The whole nord stream thing is something the Americans want to ban anyway, but at a major cost to Europe. Kicking Russia out of swift will probably just cause a different system to be used. The Russians have their own already.

I said it was a matter of perception. Within the West, the actions of NATO or Western forces tends to be lauded for being humanitarian, even when it involves the reinforcement or installation of pro-western regimes/attitudes. Outside of the west though, countries will see these actions as being no different from the behavior of other countries in their own spheres of influence.

I'm not criticising NATO or European forces for what they've done.. but I can see that there are double standards being applied. It boils down to propaganda, and the perception of what is "right".

I dunno. Remember when Trump was going on and on about the lack of commitment by European nations? There were a number of documentaries at that time covering the state of European arsenals, and their readiness for combat, with many criticisms that European equipment wasn't being maintained properly.

In any case, I see any kind of occupation as being unsustainable... so why would Russia bother to invade Europe? There's no upside.

I don't know if I'd use Trump as my news source!

Which is not what I said.

I said there were a number of documentaries covering the lack of maintenance of European arsenals/hardware.

Again, I don't see any reason why Russia would invade Europe, enough to justify the risks involved over the long term.

Without the cash he is still popular as ever because Russians would blame the west. He’d divert sales to China anyway or his near abroad.

I don't know what your point is supposed to be.

Regarding Afghanistan, geography and the nature of the conflict determined the losses involved. The same problems that the US had themselves in trying to control the area. One of the major problems for Russia, was the over reliance on conscripted forces, and morale within the Russian forces. The continuance of the Communist model for the military. That's changed somewhat since Putin got into control, but Afghanistan will always be a terrible place to occupy. In the case of a conventional war between nations, technology has advanced dramatically, but the weapons of 40 years ago, are still effective on the ground.

Occupation of territory is next to impossible in the modern sense, especially, if you wish to continue interacting with the international community afterwards.

I've said that I don't see Russia as a direct threat to Europe. Regardless of military capabilities, there are far too many negatives with taking and holding European territories.