European countries can stand up to what is obviously unacceptable (industrial espionage conducted by US military intelligence). But Denmark in the later years have chosen not to.

Denmark, no clue. But Greenland? The Arctic Circle is of increasing geopolitical importance and competition between Russia and America.

I can't see what would possibly lead to a Russian invasion of Denmark.

Seriously? I'm sure the fact that Ukrainians could see contrast with next-door Poland had nothing to do with Maidan... no, it was CIA, definitely.

The overthrow of the government was effected by armed militias, with a heavy far-right presence (e.g., pictures of Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who ethnically cleansed Poles from Western Ukraine during WWII). The US government had a hand in picking the successor government - there's even audio of the behind-the-scenes discussions. There was obviously popular support in Western Ukraine for Maidan, but there was also a lot of foreign involvement and the seizure of power itself was violent and unconstitutional.

From Crimea being part of Russia for centuries, having 60% russian ethnicity population, Ukraine government being toppled by nationalists and neo-nazis with US support, etc...

https://www.thelocal.dk/20150625/russia-rehearsed-takeover-o...

Remember, Ukrainians were literally "brothers"; if it happened to them, is any weak neighbor really safe?

On its homeland. France has limited excess ability to project power to e.g. Lithuania. Or Greenland.

About 10,000 troops abroad to Russia's nearly 50,000. (Though an advantage in carriers.)

No. Nuclear deterrents work against nuclear threats. But a lot of modern warfare is by proxy. Subnuclear force is what matters.

More tangibly: Russia starts constructing a base on Greenland. Does France risk nuclear exchange to challenge it? For that matter, would America? Of course not.

Sanctions, blockading the construction site and threatening to build similarly near Russian assets would be the game. Each of these, individually, is within Paris' capacity. (Except, maybe, sanctions.) But collectively, no.

It depends on the theatre. At sea, probably, in a nuclear exchange France has sufficient deterrent capability. But in a land war, tank on tank the way God meant it to be, France’s 200 tanks are no match for Russia’s thousands.

Remember purchasing power parity. Russia may be poorer than France, but it’s stuff costs a lot less too.

Additionally, Rafales are more than a strong contender to Russia's Su35. A dozen Reapers too, for good measure.

France isn't the world's fifth military power and one of the biggest seller of weapons for no reason.

The USSR beat the much better Nazi tanks through sheer numbers, at some point the numbers advantage overcomes the quality advantage.

The Germans thought so highly of the T-34 that they thought of cloning it, but came to the conclusion that designing a new tank to counter it was in the end a more feasible idea. This process eventually resulted in the Panther, often thought to be the best tank of the entire war. Although in practice it was beset by reliability issues, and of course it was too little too late in general by then.

Getting back to the original topic, the lesson seems that for tank vs tank combat, large numbers of good enough tanks win the day. Now, the T-72 did disastrously poorly in the Gulf war, but OTOH apparently 'domestic' USSR T-72's have better armor to begin with than the export versions used in Iraq, and further upgraded ones with more armor and modern sensors might be a much harder nut to crack.

Tanks are not used for that anymore, they are used as little fortresses in cities, but fighting on a open field..well you have seen what happened in the first and second iraq war.

Tanks are deathtraps in cities. Attackers trap them with obstacles and then attack with RPGs. See the footage on YouTube in Chechnya or Syria.

In the open battlefield as in Iraq 1 (especially) and 2 they were very effective although of course airpower is the key factor.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Op...

>In the open battlefield as in Iraq 1 (especially) and 2 they were very effective

That was artillery and aircraft's, mostly NOT Tank VS Tank.

> https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Op...

To quote from this book, about regarding how badly they faired in Chechnya (as mentioned above):

> High casualties, massive collateral damage, and heavy losses in vehicles and equipment all point to the apparent folly of using tanks in the urban fight. This chapter will discuss the 1995 battle for Grozny and examine why the Russian armor did not achieve the desired results.

So... the argument is that "Russians don't know how to use tanks". I don't find this argument particularly persuasive.

It's true that up-armourmed Abrams in Fallujah proved effective against RPG-7s (as mentioned in your link). But the RPG-29 was used in Syria successfully against them, and (more often) by Hezbollah against the Merkava tanks.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-rpg-threat-to-mode...

France has no A10s and S500 allows Russia to deny airspace to it anyway.

But it wants the Soviet Union back.

>> and is not a threat to anyone

Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but

>> except immediate neighbors

Yeah except the immediate neighbours and then the neighbours of the neighbours. Think of the Soviet Union era...

Speaking of neighbours Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania and few others are pretty close to Russia. I guess they are on your list of doomed neighbours anyway.

If there were, they would collectively take a much much harder stance with Russia. This is why Eastern Europe is so much more pro-USA than Western Europe.

Crimea was part of Russia for centuries, it has 60%+ citizens of Russian ethnicity, and it had its government toppled and neo-nazis and nationalists come to power in a NATO proxy power play.

It would be like Mexico having an area (say Baja California) with 60% WASP Americans, that has been historically part of the US, and having Mexico's government toppled with the help of a foreign superpower and used against the US.

Would the US annex Baja California then?

Then again, the US have already annexed Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc, from Mexico, so there's that...

Of course, the US government supports affiliated NGOs as it does elsewhere in the world (and as everyone does), but "power play" means something else.

*supported as in created, instructed and financed.

Haven't we entered an age where 'non-eyeToEye-threats' can do enormous damage, even if by error (e.g. nuclear bombing the US)?

People may think whatever they want about what happened to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but to called that an annexation (or an invasion, as many have) is disingenuous as best.

It's no secret (in fact, it's on public record) that it was the USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" in power in Kiev. While presented as "spreading democracy and freedom", in the backdrop Western companies (with strong government ties) were making deals to take control of the natural resources in both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Most importantly, those deals envisioned to take away the control (or even access) Russia (and the local population, for that matter) have/had over these resources. If anyone annexed anything, it was rather the USA than Russia. The key on all that is to observe which side was the one taking all the initiatives, and which side was basically just responding to what the other side did.

This fear mongering about Russian expansion simply doesn't match reality. If anyone has been expanding the last decade or so, it is NATO, not Russia. In reality, it probably should not surprise anyone. It's a well proven tactic to simply accuse your victims of being the one showing aggression, while in reality that is just resistance to your own (illegal) aggression. Just ask some of the older Poles. They still remember what Germany did.

I don't know where you think the "green men" militia came from, but I know for certain that they were Russian military (and no, not on vacation). And let's not forget that a Buk system was provided directly from Russia that then downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 283 crew and passengers. Dutch authorities and international investigators have uncovered and documented every single minute of this crime, from the arrival of the BUK system to its hasty departure afterwards, and identified the Russian officers involved in it by name and picture.

These are the facts.

Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending.

Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.

It's far more basic than that. Enforcement of domestic laws is based on the monopoly on violence the government carries. In international law, the two parties do not acknowledge each other's monopoly on violence. They are extremely unlikely to just roll over and accept the punishment.

Enforcing international law is just war with added steps and a more morally palatable justification. Sometimes nations capitulate before war breaks out (typically because the punishment is less severe than war, or because their odds of winning are low), but it doesn't change that they're surrendering to violence.

> Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law.

International law is largely broken. It's predicated on the idea that the combined military power of the rest of the world can overpower the "guilty" country. Nuclear weaponry means that in the event of international law enforcement that threatens the existence of a country, they have just as much ability to make the rest of the world uninhabitable as the alliance of nations does to destroy theirs. We can't meaningfully enforce international law against nuclear capable countries. This is why economy-ruining sanctions are only enforced on nations that lack nuclear armaments. Hypothetically, if Cuba had nuclear missiles, do you really think our embargo of them would have lasted this long?

It's just a further division of the world into have's and have nots.

All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.

There is a reason why countries like the US and Russia go at great length in arguing that what they do is not violating international law in cases when they are actually breaking it.

Moreover, even those states who occasionally break it most of the time conform with international law and resort to treaties and conflict resolution mechanisms associated with them. It's not as if Russia (or the US, for what it matters) ratify no international agreements at all or always break them or completely ignore international agreements.

Overall, your position is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of international relations. Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power, and for most part even those that break treaties, agreements, and habitual rules of conduct only do so as an exception to the rule. I can assure you that Russia cares a great deal about being recognized as a rational and reliable actor rather than as a mad rogue state.

What you say about the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) is clearly just your personal opinion, so let's ignore that.

Any specific existing treaty that forgives or wipes away a war crime? Or many. Despite the tens of thousands (conservatively) of dead civilians resulting from direct US military action, the US has not even been accused of a single instance of a war crime. Why do you think that is? Well I'll tell you, as someone who's been elbow deep into this for quite a few years of my life: international law is an esoteric, negotiable concept, it's a guideline, and it relies on consent and the power to apply your view. Kind of like the rules of conduct in a company. You don't slap your CEO even if they deserve it, and you don't go to an HR that is controlled by them. In the same vein, international relations is the "science" of agreeing on an outcome the stronger party wants and the weaker one can live with. International law is there as a framework but there's no accepted "Supreme Judge, Jury, and Executioner" who just presses charges, delivers a verdict, and carries out the sentence in the name of the victim or the planet, and everyone has to abide.

A strong enough player is untouchable, they can break a treaty and it's up to the others to decide the action... or let it slide. Who do you think has the power or guts to gather the necessary evidence and the international support to investigate the US for war crimes? And if it went through, who has the power to impose any kind of measures against the US? What kind of retaliation can they expect afterwards? Do you really think there are no perks to being the wold's biggest superpower?

Armchair international politics is a lot more fun than the real thing, I'll tell you that.

> Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power

There is some give and take but for some it's literally what they do for a living. The US has openly pressured the EU to do things for decades, from supporting sanctions they didn't agree with, to changing Galileo frequencies to something that the US could more easily jam. And they've been doing it on every continent under threat of war, sanctions, or interference. It wasn't as a favor between friends, and it certainly wasn't in the spirit of cooperation and all those international treaties.

> the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) [...] so let's ignore that

A bit of reading comprehension goes a long way. That was exactly my point, that there are no good or bad, no moral and immoral/amoral countries. They do what they need to do to stay on top of the pile. Don't ignore something because you can't parse it. It's clearly the best way to form an uninformed opinion and then state it firmly, assuming you have an iron clad case.

However, you're still under a false impression. You're just looking at a few global superpowers and former superpowers such as Russia, China, and the US. However, the UN has 193 member states and there are countless bilateral treaties that entangle countries in a positive way.

> There is some give and take but for some it's literally what they do for a living.

That's not true, as I've said, your view of international relations is unrealistic. You're thinking way too much in black and white terms. As I've mentioned earlier, even the countries who occasionally break international law normally adhere to it and consult their experts about it and try to avoid breaking it. Your remark is especially ironic in the context of a thread about Denmark. There are more countries than the US, China, and Russia. Most of these countries work quite well with each other on the basis of international law. For every case that you believe demonstrates arbitrary power abuse, you can find another case in which international treaties, conflict resolution mechanisms by UN, and diplomatic channels have worked.

You're generalizing from very few hand-picked nations, which are known to have particular geostrategical goals that other countries do not have. Denmark is not waging illegal wars or annexing regions of other countries, for instance. Most countries don't do these kind of things.

> That was exactly my point, that there are no good or bad, no moral and immoral/amoral countries. They do what they need to do to stay on top of the pile.

You did not understand this point. I'm saying that countries cannot be moral actors because they are not uniform entities. Countries are not actors at all. If at all, you can talk about particular governments this way, but these change all the time. Or, you could say that certain geostrategical goals seem to influence a government's actions, but that involve a lot of interpretation and background knowledge. You need to assign moral properties to decision makers, or perhaps governments. So it only appears as if we agree on this point.

Of course, there are immoral actions of governments, though. Russia's annexation of the Crimea is a prime example of one. So are US drone strikes, Guantanamo, and the false pretenses for the 2nd Golf War.

If your suggestion is that governments cannot be held accountable for their actions, then I have to say I'm baffled and have no idea what made you adopt this outlandish view. They are being held accountable all the time, as well as individual members of governments if it is clear they are responsible for a certain decision.

Sometimes people use the country name as a shortcut and if it's clear that they mean the governments and other institutions during a certain time period, then that's alright. But talking about countries in general as if they were uniform actors is always nonsense.

> Don't ignore something because you can't parse it. It's clearly the best way to form an uninformed opinion and then state it firmly, assuming you have an iron clad case.

You seem to be talking about yourself here. Psychologists call this projection. As I've said, there does not seem to be any substantial disagreement between us - now that you've changed your mind about international law, or at least chose to change the subject to a more general topic. Yes, a few countries such as the US and Russia sometimes break international law, presumably because they think they can afford it in light of too tame opposition. If that's your big geopolitical insight, so be it.

No, their argument is "The US has done bad things, so Russia should do bad things too, and it is UNFAIR to react to that." The rest is just pseudo-intellectual justification for that position.

To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself.

As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2.

Don't take my word for it. You will see.

It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow.

Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the first to mention it. Even more that most of these people appear to come from countries that probably are the biggest violators of international laws, by historical track record.

I'm not even going to argue with you, for you rather obviously take personal convictions over actual knowledge. Good luck with that.

Here is a fact for you: the forces/interest behind most of this will come back to roost one day. Maybe rather sooner than you think. One thing I'm pretty sure of: you're not going to like. Don't say that nobody tried to warn you, when it turns out that the joke was always on you.

You're just plain wrong in both of your posts.

[1] https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_cri...

However, what I am doing is calling you out .. I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it.

Either way, the moment you mentioned international law in relation to this issue, and even had to nerve to declare that the truth of your convictions are factually undeniable, you yourself were the one who pretty much shoved all-in and closed the door for any meaningful discussion. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror first, if you want to blame someone for being called out for that.

I have a pretty decent track record of being rather respectful (definitely beyond and above average) towards to opinions of other. Just maybe not for people who talk like you. You can take your (abuse of) political correctness and ..

EDIT: I see what you are trying, but you still don't get it (regarding international law). Good luck and goodbye.

On a side note, there is no respect in your posts at all. On the contrary, after two ad-hominem attacks you even make up a completely new topic of "political correctness" that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far.

> I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it.

Right... have a good one!

- Ukraine was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military

- Georgia was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military

Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines.

That's something all capable militaries do on a regular basis. "Accidentally", of course. The US does this, Russia does it, China does it and so on. While it's of course not nice, it's disingenuous to use it in any kind of argument.

South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast in the Georgian SSR. When the USSR disintegrated, Georgia and South Ossetia fought a war, which ended up with a truce that lasted until the Georgian invasion in 2008.

Some would say Denmark is already in this unthinkable situation so the poor people of Denmark can only hope that one day, some green patriotic Russians will land on danish soil to save them.

>> USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians"

Let's not talk about questionable "politicians" supported by Putin. They are all either dictators or wanna be soviet/communist, oligarchs or the worst shady thing you could possible imagine.

Until Russia realises that nobody wants (except Russia) the Soviet era back these small countries have no choice but support U.S's interests. The way Russia is doing business & diplomacy is just ugly(albeit efficient at times).

Not by choice, Russians still think the collapse of USSR a tragic mistake, and Putin’s rhetoric ties directly back to it.

Russian “defence” spending is skyrocketing, Russia is holding frequent manoeuvres righ in NATO borders, keeps flying bombers ever-so-slightly into NATO country airspace’s... and most of all, Russia shows it is more than happy to apply brute force to achieve political goals. In Ukraine, Georgia, who’s next?

Denmark, Poland and Sweden, not to mention the Baltic states, are rightly concerned about Russia’s posturing. If it’s not meant to be intimidating and creating a low-level Cold War, then it’s a very odd way of showing neighbourly love.

I’m sure comparisons to American imperialism will follow, and maybe justifiably so. But crucially, US does not invade European countries, voila the pertinent difference.

This is wrong, it barely keeps up with inflation: https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/r...

This is a whopping 9% of the yearly defense spending of the US.