• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Russia threatens to turn Kyiv into a "giant melted spot"

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I would expect the USA to hold back and probably not join at all if Trump is in charge.

Trump says he could end the war in 24 hours if elected. I don't really believe that, but I guess we'll see what happens.

If Harris is in charge it could be a different story.. but the European forces are tiny in comparison to Russia's and would probably be overrun very quickly. They have very small stockpiles of ammunition of all kinds. the USA now has very few forces in Europe, it has been pulling out for years.

The combined populations and industrial capacity of just Britain, France, and Germany could field a rather formidable army which would likely outmatch the Russians. Even if their forces are small now, it doesn't mean they can't start a massive build up - if they're really that concerned that something like this could happen.

The Germans never had many forces in Poland until the Russians attacked. The polish Air force personnel retreated to the uk and were the most successful unit in the battle of britain.Their main defence force consisted of mounted cavalry which was obliterated in the first Panza attack.

My point is that if Britain and France had struck at Germany immediately, while they were still bogged down in Poland, the war likely could have been ended much sooner.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Trump says he could end the war in 24 hours if elected. I don't really believe that, but I guess we'll see what happens.



The combined populations and industrial capacity of just Britain, France, and Germany could field a rather formidable army which would likely outmatch the Russians. Even if their forces are small now, it doesn't mean they can't start a massive build up - if they're really that concerned that something like this could happen.



My point is that if Britain and France had struck at Germany immediately, while they were still bogged down in Poland, the war likely could have been ended much sooner.
They were never bogged down in Poland only a few decisions were used , the bulk of the army bypassed french defences by attacking through Belgium.
UK sent such forces as they had to France but were overrun and defeated at Dunkirk where they lost all their equipment. What was left of the french army capitulated.
The German army dominated all of Europe except Spain under Franco and Switzerland.
The effective, fight back only started on the ground when Germany made the mistake of invading Russia.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They were never bogged down in Poland only a few decisions were used , the bulk of the army bypassed french defences by attacking through Belgium.
UK sent such forces as they had to France but were overrun and defeated at Dunkirk where they lost all their equipment. What was left of the french army capitulated.
The German army dominated all of Europe except Spain under Franco and Switzerland.
The effective, fight back only started on the ground when Germany made the mistake of invading Russia.

Well, the point I was making, in light of your criticism of the US joining the war late, was that both Britain and France were also slow to act against Germany, even despite declaring war. That's why many called it the "Phony War."

It wasn't because the Allies didn't have a strong enough force to repel the Germans, but they were outmaneuvered. That's more a reflection on the top leadership, not the soldiers in the field.

But yes, once the Germans invaded Russia, that was a fatal mistake which would eventually spell their doom. Some might also point to Germany's declaration of war on the United States as another fatal blunder, especially since Japan did not declare war on the USSR.

The main problem for Germany was that they had very little oil. That was the main reason for their impetuous move into Russia, as they were desperate for oil. The U.S. was practically swimming in oil, so we didn't have that problem.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The main problem for Germany was that they had very little oil. That was the main reason for their impetuous move into Russia, as they were desperate for oil. The U.S. was practically swimming in oil, so we didn't have that problem.
The same reason why the United States are urging Ukraine to wage war against Russia. They are desperate for Russian gas.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The same reason why the United States are urging Ukraine to wage war against Russia. They are desperate for Russian gas.

Not sure why the U.S. would need Russian gas, though. There are other sources available. That's why I could never understand the U.S. government's obsession with Persian Gulf oil. There are plenty of other sources of oil around the world, including within the U.S. itself.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Not sure why the U.S. would need Russian gas, though. There are other sources available.
Well...I need a logical reason why the Neo-Cons have been trying to prevent Germany from buying Russian gas.
I think it's because they want that gas.
That's why I could never understand the U.S. government's obsession with Persian Gulf oil. There are plenty of other sources of oil around the world, including within the U.S. itself.
Tell that to the dems who don't want to drill for new oil in the US.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well...I need a logical reason why the Neo-Cons have been trying to prevent Germany from buying Russian gas.
I think it's because they want that gas.

Maybe they're just trying to corner the market. They may not need the gas themselves, but they may still want to be able to control it - so nobody else can get it.

Tell that to the dems who don't want to drill for new oil in the US.

Oh, I've tried. You've been around here long enough to see what it's like. You can't tell them anything, since they think they know everything and that they know what's best for everyone. They're such brilliant thinkers who are so much more enlightened than the rest of us Great Unwashed.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Not sure why the U.S. would need Russian gas, though. There are other sources available. That's why I could never understand the U.S. government's obsession with Persian Gulf oil. There are plenty of other sources of oil around the world, including within the U.S. itself.
Maybe the strategy is to use up other nations' oil first.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Not sure why the U.S. would need Russian gas, though. There are other sources available. That's why I could never understand the U.S. government's obsession with Persian Gulf oil. There are plenty of other sources of oil around the world, including within the U.S. itself.
It is far cheaper and cost effective to get oil from Saudi Arabia and deliver it to the west coast than to transport oil and gas \across land. It has done this for years. Of recent times as shale oil has come on stream the US has been purchasing less oil from the middle east. Persian gulf oil is of a quality American refineries are set up to process. Other oil samples need major refining process changes.
It can be done but it it is not cost effective, to keep changing.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
It is far cheaper and cost effective to get oil from Saudi Arabia and deliver it to the west coast than to transport oil and gas \across land. It has done this for years. Of recent times as shale oil has come on stream the US has been purchasing less oil from the middle east. Persian gulf oil is of a quality American refineries are set up to process. Other oil samples need major refining process changes.
It can be done but it it is not cost effective, to keep changing.
Not sure most people are aware of the largest exporters to the US actually are. Saudi Arabia exports paltry amounts to the US versus others in our own hemisphere:

The top five countries that export oil to the United States are:
  • Canada: The largest exporter of total petroleum to the United States, exporting 4.0 million barrels per day (b/d) in June 2024.
  • Mexico: The second largest exporter of total petroleum to the United States, exporting 575,000 b/d in June 2024.
  • Guyana: Exported 293,000 b/d in June 2024.
  • Saudi Arabia: Exported 273,000 b/d in June 2024.
  • Venezuela: Exported 226,000 b/d in June 2024.

 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What kind of leverage does an importer have over the exporter when the importer is the biggest customer?

My impression is the major oil corporations seem to be the ones with the most leverage, both in the marketplace and the political realm.
 
Top