Griskard said:
That's because they didn't opt for a program of extermination of the entire population.
How to invade Russia?
- Thread starter Almalexia
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
That's because they didn't opt for a program of extermination of the entire population.
ssfsx17
Regular
If I had to take over Russia, for some stupid and pointless reason, I would do it as follows:
1. Provoke Russia into attacking all the ex-Soviet countries first. This will get a large portion of its forces stuck, as many of the ex-Soviet countries do not like Russia very much.
2. Convince all the oil and gas tycoons of Russia that invading China is a good idea. Preferably while filling them with white powder up their noses. They will then convince the Russian military to do this.
3. Help Chechnya get hooked up with al-Qaeda and Mexican druglords and learn all the latest terror techniques. Then, have Chechen rebels use these techniques on Russian heartland.
4. Encourage the racist skinhead Russians. Maybe even help them get into power. Teach them to rule in the style of African warlords.
5. Wait for about twenty years.
6. Finally, when it's time to invade, make sure that the entire rest of the world is unified under a totalitarian world government. Ruled by yourself, of course.
This is not exactly the fastest way, but it does cost the least amount of resources and men for the guy who wants to take over Russia.
1. Provoke Russia into attacking all the ex-Soviet countries first. This will get a large portion of its forces stuck, as many of the ex-Soviet countries do not like Russia very much.
2. Convince all the oil and gas tycoons of Russia that invading China is a good idea. Preferably while filling them with white powder up their noses. They will then convince the Russian military to do this.
3. Help Chechnya get hooked up with al-Qaeda and Mexican druglords and learn all the latest terror techniques. Then, have Chechen rebels use these techniques on Russian heartland.
4. Encourage the racist skinhead Russians. Maybe even help them get into power. Teach them to rule in the style of African warlords.
5. Wait for about twenty years.
6. Finally, when it's time to invade, make sure that the entire rest of the world is unified under a totalitarian world government. Ruled by yourself, of course.
This is not exactly the fastest way, but it does cost the least amount of resources and men for the guy who wants to take over Russia.
Given we're a net exporter, I can't see how we wouldn't be able to. Unless we reduce pumping for some reason.Griskard said:
Last I checked, the entire of Russia was not an oil field.
Whose going to notice precisely? America? They wouldn't turn up to the war until it'd been going for a few years. Europe? even when they've finished executing governments and decided which side they're on, they're as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Last I checked they were having elections, which is a pretty big difference really. More than the Soviet Union managed anyway. And it's not like the insurgents have managed much. A few hundred dead for how many of theirs, a few thousand? Insurgencies tend to rely on killing more of the enemy than they kill of you.
Why Ukranian tanks, why not just move our tanks to the Ukraine and use their fuel? Or is Ukranian diesel incompatible with Western combustion engines?
They've shut down the Khyber pass, used to move humanitarian aid, not military supplies. I fail to see it having a huge effect on the military campaign.
Ok I've come up with a better way to invade Russia!
First: Dig a hole starting in Ukraine.
Second: Dig till your about in the middle of Russia.
Third: Come up to the surface.
Fourth: Pull out your weapon of choice. ( Preferably a weapon that shoots bullets )
Fifth: Pull out your Mp3 so you can listen to music while your taking over Russia.
Sixth: Shoot every russian that dares to fight back.
Seventh: Enjoy some vodka because your have just taken over Russia.
Now this is just an idea, but Im sure if you have alot of songs on your Mp3 and alot of bullets, taking over russia shouldn't be that hard. Supplies? Well just take some stimpaks with ya and I'm sure you'll be allright.
First: Dig a hole starting in Ukraine.
Second: Dig till your about in the middle of Russia.
Third: Come up to the surface.
Fourth: Pull out your weapon of choice. ( Preferably a weapon that shoots bullets )
Fifth: Pull out your Mp3 so you can listen to music while your taking over Russia.
Sixth: Shoot every russian that dares to fight back.
Seventh: Enjoy some vodka because your have just taken over Russia.
Now this is just an idea, but Im sure if you have alot of songs on your Mp3 and alot of bullets, taking over russia shouldn't be that hard. Supplies? Well just take some stimpaks with ya and I'm sure you'll be allright.
Lord Leoric of Wercheg
Grandmaster Knight
That wouldn't work. You'll get sniped, bombed, or naded.
But the stimpaks.....Ya your right. Hmmmm Ok I will go to bed and dream of a new plan.
Thats like saying because you use a vehicle to drive to work, you can haul mining machinery halfway across the country because it needs to be transported via a vehicle. Your Ford Focus isn't gonna cut it.
Sending your men to hold large areas of land, in an isolated, hostile environment isn't done to often for a reason. I was assuming you weren't planning on throwing away men on suicide missions, but I might have been mistaken. Generally you want a land corridor of some sort...
Echum. A Third of the worlds oil and natural gas stops going where its meant to, and nobody is going to have a clue, we will just all get on with our happy lives. I see. I failed to include that in my calculations. I assume you were going to convert the jets to run off horse urine? I heard its possible...
Actually, The soviet union brought health care, infrastructure, education and law enforcement levels up to quite a high level, higher than what we have now. The government at the time was democratically elected and continued to run the country for several years afterwards at even higher levels again.
Insurgencys in recent history have always lost more. Its not a case of how many you lose, its how many your willing to lose. If the Taliban are prepared to lose 30 000 men and be fighting 20 years, they are going to beat an invader who has the idea of 5 years and a few hundred dead.
Look at the Vietnam war, the Soviet-Afghan war or the Algerian war. In those three the winning side lost more. And the more you look at, they all follow that trend.
I assumed you meant Ukrainian equipment, Sorry, I misinterpreted that. Ok, you use Ukrainian oil. Pity the Ukraine has to import 2/3rds of the oil they use. Guess where that comes from. Russia.
Its actually used to resupply the NATO forces. When it shut down NATO was scrambling for a route, and Russia gave them one. Future routes planned go through Iran.
We got through WWII by rationing. There's plenty of oil being pumped for the military, the problem is the civilian demand. If you ration or restrict the fuel provided for the civilians then you have plenty for the army. Even assuming for some reason that there was literally no oil being pumped, standing government policy is to have a year worth of reserve at all times - a year at current consumption. Ration or restrict that from the citizens and you should have enough to keep the army in the field for a significant amount of time.Griskard said:
There is something else you haven't considered however - Russia is heavily dependent on the revenue from the oil and gas she pumps. Turn off the pipes to Europe and you turn off that revenue. A lack of oil can paralyse your military; a lack of money can cause the country to collapse. What would stop NATO simply sitting at the border and moving in "to restore order" when the government inevitably falls?
If you're trying to invade a country, then this is kind of the point
You're not going to successfully invade Russia unless you're capable of holding large areas of land. Russia for example ...Like I said, we do have stockpiles. Recently increased due to the Russia / Ukraine gas bill arguments.
Look at the amount of failed or ongoing insurgencies. There's far more of them.
Point being, a logistic line is only an issue when you cross hostile territory. If the Ukraine remains friendly and you can provide sufficient naval protection in the Baltic (which has always been a problem for Russia) then you can quite happily build up large stockpiles in the Ukraine or similar territories. Your supply line doesn't really start until you actually enter Russia.
The Khyber pass is only one of around six lines coming in from Pakistan, and has never really been secure on the Pakistani side of the border, let alone the Afghan one. According to NATO, the line carries food, clothes and humanitarian aid. The reason it's been hit is because these goods are being sold on the black market within both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If it was military supplies in there, you can count on two things happening. Firstly, the Taliban would be a damn sight better equipped, and secondly the pass would be siezed by NATO. Since it's "only humanitarian" aid, none of the commanders on the ground really give a ****. Which is the wrong idea if you ask me, but I guess asking any country to expend it's soldiers lives so people they've never met can have jumpers isn't an easy thing to do.
Ill give you the first bit, but Russia runs about 120 bill surplus each year, and have enough foreign reserves to pay their bills for the next 3 years, and enough in their social security fund for another two. Other treasury details are hidden so I don't know what else they have. It doesn't matter if you can, I just don't think Europe is willing to go without oil for years (Yes, they can build another pipeline and so on, but thats years, and they still wouldn't get the oil Russia pumps)
Yes, but you don't take pockets. Taking all the oil fields would mean there are places your sending men where Russia would be able to fold on and leave your men holding only the oil fields. Which would be a problem. UNLESS you take and hold enough land to the oilfield. If your going to do that you may ass well have just made a huge push directly through Russia. Look at where the oil fields are.
It would still be initially traumatic, and then very traumatic once the reserves run out.
An ongoing Insurgency isn't a failed insurgency. In fact, most insurgencys appear they are failing. Often outnumbered and outkilled, but they generally are more prepared to die than the "invaders"
I'm not overly knowledgable on the Khyber pass, but I do know that there are many cases of Insurgents not being willing to use the enemys equipment. For example in Vietnam the American M16 was considered so unreliable and useless the Vietcong would leave them with dead bodys. In the conditions in Afghanistan not many weapons work well in desert conditions. The difference between guns is small, and if an AK works every time, you know which one to take.
Laiska-Jaakko
Recruit
Pfft. Freakin' Estonia could take em.
Cirdan
Master Knight
You had me until you claimed the government was democratically elected. It was "democratically elected" by a Party congress in which Babrak Karmal made it clear he was Moscow's choice, and if he wasn't elected they could kiss all the Soviet aid goodbye. A whole load of Afghan communists looked at the tons of military hardware being given to the Mujahdin, and then voted for guns from Russia.Griskard said:
Still, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan and the Soviets achieved more than NATO and Karzaï, but they practically bankrupted the USSR in the process.
Wouldn't it?!Sensei said:
- Status
