You know, the whole thing with America, Poland, Russia and the missile defenses reminds me of something... what was it now?... oh yeah, the Cuban fucking Missile Crisis. You remember that? When Russia put missiles on America's doorstep and nearly destroyed the world in doing so. It isn't one of the more uplifting moments in world history. So what the fuck was running through Bush's mind when he decided to do exactly the same thing, only in reverse? What kind of logic to you have to be operating under to come up with a plan like that? "Gee, you think the Ruskies'll notice if we slip these missiles here?" "Naw, they's too busy drinking vodka to notice the likes of us." It's like watching a bear trying to sneak into a rabbit hole. A really big, fluorescent bear.

Yes, the current situation with Russia is pretty fucked up. But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy people spout when commenting on the situation. I mean, Russia isn't the only country with a dodgy human rights record. Nearly every single country in the western world is guilty of human rights abuse, espionage, starting fights where they shouldn't, and other illegal shit. Last I heard, America was still shipping undesirables of to Guantanamo to have the shit waterboarded out of them. Heck, half of Europe has still got troops in Iraq, and we know for a fact that we were lied to in order toget us there in the first place! Oh, and my fellow Britons. Our stance on the Russia-Georgia conflict would perhaps be less hypocritical if we weren't selling military gear to both sides. Seriously, in 2007 the UK sold £5.4 million worth of military exports to Georgia, and £55 million worth of military kit to Russia. We're selling them the bits they need to make fighter jets to bomb the crap out of each other. What kind of soapbox can we stand on with that?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Yes, the current situation with Russia is pretty fucked up. But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy people spout when commenting on the situation. I mean, Russia isn't the only country with a dodgy human rights record.

Hmh, is this really a road we want to go down? ;-)

Nearly every single country in the western world is guilty of human rights abuse, espionage, starting fights where they shouldn't, and other illegal shit. Last I heard, America was still shipping undesirables of to Guantanamo to have the shit waterboarded out of them. Heck, half of Europe has still got troops in Iraq, and we know for a fact that we were lied to in order toget us there in the first place!

I've never understood how trying to help keep the peace after the clusterfuck which was the original invasion should be seen as collusion with said invasion? The only people who get hurt are the Iraqis, and they've suffered enough.

anti_strunt:

unabomberman:
Also, someone mentioned Russia being pure realpolitik, and yes, you are right, but let's not forget that the U.S is too, It did go to war unilaterally against Iraq while the U.N was still delivering on the matter and people let that stuff fly. Well, I'm sure the Russians still remember that, and now they are behaving in that exact way as a bargaining tool. Now we have a rising superpower being just as belligerent as the current one.

People let it fly? Maybe it's just me, but as far as I remember most countries were pretty darn upset by it... I don't recall the diplomatic repercussions (not that it's easy to put pressure on the US), but no-one I knew at the time supported the war, or even saw any logical reason for waging it (and don't say oil!).

Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but to me it seems that Russia is so big and so loaded with natural resources that if anyone tries to force sanctions on it there won't be much of an impact, and what's worse, they are organized now. If they get really belligerent they can just cut trading with Europe and then gas prices will soar through the roof.

While she has impressive natural resources (being the largest country in the world will do that for you...), her economy is still very, very weak by western standards. A modern economy can't run on steel and coal (that's where the communists were mistaken, after all), and economic sanctions will hurt, as long as they can be enforced etc. etc.

The European dependence on Russian energy is rightly seen as a weakness.

If push comes to shove I don't want to be in the middle. Right now the U.S isn't really in shape to call Russia on anything (war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, shaky economy as of right now), and the E.U isn't in better shape either. The Chinese are keeping mum, of course, and everyone else is whining, and somehow, still, people don't seem to mention that Georgia was looking into getting NATO involved in there for a while now, which in turn would have destabilized the region just the same. My money is on the russkies looking after their interests while actually trying hard to send a message to the world. I mean, you don't just blitzkrieg an entire army just for the "lulz", or do you?

Aside from the nukes, Russia is currently not a real military threat to the west - her army could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else.

First of all, Thanks for answering.

Now, to the meaty stuff:

I do not agree with you, people DID let it fly when the U.S attacked Iraq. Everyone complained and opposed the war, but nobody did a real tangible thing. You could argue that people opposed the U.S diplomatically, but not one country even went as far as to even try to enforce sanctions on it.

I agree with you that a modern nation's economy can't run on steel and coal, but you forget that mama Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and is number eight on oil reserves. As far as I can see, the russkies have plenty to go by. Please explain what you mean by Russia's economy being weak by western standards.

Maybe you have some gnarly history books I don't know about, but as far as I've read; today Russia has modern nukes enough to carpet bomb the better part of Europe, and modern missiles, and a modern air force(maybe not up to snuff with Israel but who knows), and modern army equipment. What I'm really saying is that I don't really want to find out. I'm not talking about mama Russia being a threat to the west or not, but so far, we can't really comment on the real state of its army in a full scale war, even less now, after having it do a massive blitzkrieg on a neighboring country. What we can tell is that they are no pushovers. We can't really say in any informed manner that the Russian army "could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else," I feel we could at least agree to that.

EDIT: Someone asked for this

http://www.russiatoday.com/en
http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok

two very opposing sides of the same coin.

You forgot to mention that Russia has a shit-load of chemical and biological weapons. They were supposed to dispose of them but I don't think they got around to it..
Sources: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/cw.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/bw.htm

unabomberman:
First of all, Thanks for answering.

No problem. Trying to have a decent political discussion in the Age of Conan chats proved somewhat difficult, so I'm taking the opportunity.

Now, to the meaty stuff:

I do not agree with you, people DID let it fly when the U.S attacked Iraq. Everyone complained and opposed the war, but nobody did a real tangible thing. You could argue that people opposed the U.S diplomatically, but not one country even went as far as to even try to enforce sanctions on it.

Well, so far the same could be said for the current conflict... I doubt any sanctions will actually be put in place unless things get much nastier, and then we'll have far greater problems anyway...

As for the Iraqi conflict, I certainly don't think the lesson we should learn from that is not to take action when large countries run amok...

I agree with you that a modern nation's economy can't run on steel and coal, but you forget that mama Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and is number eight on oil reserves. As far as I can see, the russkies have plenty to go by. Please explain what you mean by Russia's economy being weak by western standards.

By "western standards", I primarily mean a economy producing high-level consumer goods and services for a wealthy internal and external market. A "post-industrial" economy as it's sometimes called. While Russia has some good industrial capacity, the people is simply too poor to provide a market, and Russia has very, very little experience in producing consumer goods (another Soviet leftover).

I could expand, but it's getting very late were I live. Tomorrow perhaps...

Maybe you have some gnarly history books I don't know about, but as far as I've read; today Russia has modern nukes enough to carpet bomb the better part of Europe, and modern missiles, and a modern air force(maybe not up to snuff with Israel but who knows), and modern army equipment. What I'm really saying is that I don't really want to find out. I'm not talking about mama Russia being a threat to the west or not, but so far, we can't really comment on the real state of its army in a full scale war, even less now, after having it do a massive blitzkrieg on a neighboring country. What we can tell is that they are no pushovers. We can't really say in any informed manner that the Russian army "could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else," I feel we could at least agree to that.

Russian Nukes are indeed to be feared. As for conventional equipment, Russia certainly has some interesting pieces of kit, but again economics are a factor. While the very best Russian equipment is often on par with Western equipment; the Russian standard equipment, the "meat", is decidedly inferior on a 1-to-1 basis. This is of course nothing strange; Russian/Soviet doctrine has never called for 1-to-1 engagements.

Whereas Western militaries have focused on quality; Russia has her sights set squarely on quantity. (Yes, an oversimplification, but still relevant.)

That goes for both hard factors (equipment) as well as soft (training etc.), but since the end of the Soviet Union training in particular has gone down the drain. The problems go deep, very deep. The officer and NCO corps are largely eroded and have a long way to go to reach Western standards; training is often abysmal (sometimes non-existant), and recruitment is more reminiscent of conscription than anything else. Logistics are often mostly notable for their absence - in Chechnya senior officers would make big money selling their own supplies; often to the very rebels they were supposed to be fighting!
That is not to say that there are not well-trained forces within Russia, but again the majority is ill-trained, ill-led, ill-supplied...

I'll recommend some reading on the Chechen war tomorrow...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
You know, the whole thing with America, Poland, Russia and the missile defenses reminds me of something... what was it now?... oh yeah, the Cuban fucking Missile Crisis. You remember that? When Russia put missiles on America's doorstep and nearly destroyed the world in doing so. It isn't one of the more uplifting moments in world history. So what the fuck was running through Bush's mind when he decided to do exactly the same thing, only in reverse? What kind of logic to you have to be operating under to come up with a plan like that? "Gee, you think the Ruskies'll notice if we slip these missiles here?" "Naw, they's too busy drinking vodka to notice the likes of us." It's like watching a bear trying to sneak into a rabbit hole. A really big, fluorescent bear.

Yes, the current situation with Russia is pretty fucked up. But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy people spout when commenting on the situation. I mean, Russia isn't the only country with a dodgy human rights record. Nearly every single country in the western world is guilty of human rights abuse, espionage, starting fights where they shouldn't, and other illegal shit. Last I heard, America was still shipping undesirables of to Guantanamo to have the shit waterboarded out of them. Heck, half of Europe has still got troops in Iraq, and we know for a fact that we were lied to in order toget us there in the first place! Oh, and my fellow Britons. Our stance on the Russia-Georgia conflict would perhaps be less hypocritical if we weren't selling military gear to both sides. Seriously, in 2007 the UK sold £5.4 million worth of military exports to Georgia, and £55 million worth of military kit to Russia. We're selling them the bits they need to make fighter jets to bomb the crap out of each other. What kind of soapbox can we stand on with that?

Whoa, there. Big, big difference. The Soviets shipped nuclear ICBMs to Cuba - city killers. The USA wants to deploy a missile shield system in Europe - city killer killers. Defensive only, in as much as any system can be defensive only. These are of limited use in all-out war as they are easily swamped, but very handy if some nuts (Iran, anyone?) happened to launch a handful of nukes on their Russian ICBMs at Paris, Berlin, and London. Of course, if Russia want to drop a single nuke on another nation, or maybe just "accidentally" fire off an ICBM and then say "Boy, good thing that wasn't armed, it could have wiped out your whole capital!" then I suppose that might have some efffect...

Fun fact: Know the only city in the world with an anti-missile defense system? Moscow. The SALT treaties allowed each nation to build a missile defense system for one city. The Soviet Union chose Moscow. (Probably with a lottery or something, I'm sure all Soviet cities had a fair shot.) The USA did not build one, for obvious political reasons.

This is all the more reason the USA should just become isolationist again. Why should we pay for a missile defense system for other countries when half of their citizens don't want it and the other half blame us for provoking Russia? My solution: "Worried about rogue nukes? Want a missile defense system? Sure, we'll help. You should, like, try to blow them up or something. Good luck with that, and be sure and let us know how that works out for you."

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
You know, the whole thing with America, Poland, Russia and the missile defenses reminds me of something... what was it now?... oh yeah, the Cuban fucking Missile Crisis.

There are a lot of ignorant posts in this thread, but that took the cake. There's just no intellectually honest way of comparing Khrushchev's MRBMs- a totally offensive weapon with near-zero defensive use- with the planned deployment of ten ABMs- a totally defensive weapon- to Poland.
The Russians, with their missile subs, nuclear-capable bombers, and hundreds of ICBMs cannot be serious when they say they're "threatened" by ten missile interceptors. That sort of snorting and pawing is pretty transparent.

Meanwhile, the speed with which the invasion of Georgia went off puts the lie to claims that it was a Georgian provocation. The Georgians had the hell provoked out of them by Ossetian separatists, yet the majority of the Western media swallows the Russian version hook, line, sinker, and copy of Angling Times.

Edit: Apologies to werepossum, who already made the same points. All I can add is that the expansion of NATO is about as threatening as the expansion of a coffee stain.

Rufus, the west are most definitely not swallowing Russia's version of the story. I have been watching both the BBC and Russia today. How can you say we are swallowing their story? Have you watched RT and compared it with any western news-shows?
It's not that the US have a few missiles in Europe, it's that they are pushing in to Europe. The Russians aren't taking it lying down. I don't want the Americans setting up bases and deploying troops and missiles all over Europe.

BardSeed:
Rufus, the west are most definitely not swallowing Russia's version of the story. I have been watching both the BBC and Russia today. How can you say we are swallowing their story? Have you watched RT and compared it with any western news-shows?
It's not that the US have a few missiles in Europe, it's that they are pushing in to Europe. The Russians aren't taking it lying down. I don't want the Americans setting up bases and deploying troops and missiles all over Europe.

See? Isolationism. Everybody's happy. Well, maybe not Flatearth, under the feet of the bear. Sorry, dude.

Well the fact is that a missile defense net is considered by all credible military sources, as a one component in a first strike weapon. That is, the main deterrent for the attacker to strike first(retaliation by the enemy) is removed. Hence the main threat is removed for a first striker since it´s NOT capable of blocking a first strike, and it´s use is infact to impede a retaliatory strike.

Marketed towards europe as a shield to protect against iranian long-range missile wich they don´t have. It will in reality function as removal of deterent for USA and Israeli aggression against Iran.

A small installment in eastern Europe could easily be expanded. Enough to merit attention from the russians. The answer by russia was to relaunch patroling with long-range nuclear armed bombers.

The deterence that constitutes the terror-balance is threats for actual use of nuclear weapons. Along with bunker busters (mini nukes) and arforementioned missile "defense" system we end up with a cold war 2.0 that is perhaps more volatile and dangerous than the former version. The threshold for using nuclear weapon is actually lowered with the implementation of these weapon systems and tactics.

To anti strunt:

Continuing the conversation, I'll start by addressing specific quotes.

"No problem. Trying to have a decent political discussion in the Age of Conan chats proved somewhat difficult, so I'm taking the opportunity."

Age of Conan sounds indeed like a fearful place.

"Well, so far the same could be said for the current conflict... I doubt any sanctions will actually be put in place unless things get much nastier, and then we'll have far greater problems anyway...
As for the Iraqi conflict, I certainly don't think the lesson we should learn from that is not to take action when large countries run amok..."

Indeed. But what kind of action can one take? If we are filled with resolve to do something about Russia now, then we are also morally obligated to look back and address other things that we did let happen, and things WILL get out of hand. We can't just criticize without having an actual sense of history first.

"By "western standards", I primarily mean a economy producing high-level consumer goods and services for a wealthy internal and external market. A "post-industrial" economy as it's sometimes called. While Russia has some good industrial capacity, the people is simply too poor to provide a market, and Russia has very, very little experience in producing consumer goods (another Soviet leftover).
I could expand, but it's getting very late were I live. Tomorrow perhaps..."

I have to consider this western standards thing very carefully. I'm not implying that Russia is booming, but let's not forget that they have one of the highest rates of people with higher education in Europe, and as for people being too poor to provide a market, I think things are a bit different now, and they for sure have a market; it's not like they are all in rags and stealing for food while industry is barely hanging in there. After all, Russia is no third world country; add to that that they provide VAST amounts of energy to a good chunk of Europe.

They are much better off than any Latin American country, and trust me, Brazil is no push over either. Given the fact that I live in a third world Latin American country who has an actual market, I'd be inclined to say that I need more convincing on that argument of yours. It's not whether people are poor or not, but whether there is enough flow of capital, and since most capital concentrates on a few hands, anyway, there is actual flow, for sure.

"Russian Nukes are indeed to be feared. As for conventional equipment, Russia certainly has some interesting pieces of kit, but again economics are a factor. While the very best Russian equipment is often on par with Western equipment; the Russian standard equipment, the "meat", is decidedly inferior on a 1-to-1 basis. This is of course nothing strange; Russian/Soviet doctrine has never called for 1-to-1 engagements.
Whereas Western militaries have focused on quality; Russia has her sights set squarely on quantity.
That goes for both hard factors (equipment) as well as soft (training etc.), but since the end of the Soviet Union training in particular has gone down the drain. The problems go deep, very deep. The officer and NCO corps are largely eroded and have a long way to go to reach Western standards; training is often abysmal and recruitment is more reminiscent of conscription than anything else. Logistics are often mostly notable for their absence - in Chechnya senior officers would make big money selling their own supplies; often to the very rebels they were supposed to be fighting!
That is not to say that there are not well-trained forces within Russia, but again the majority is ill-trained, ill-led, ill-supplied...
I'll recommend some reading on the Chechen war tomorrow..."

First, an old communist saying: "Quantity is quality in itself."

Yeah, well, but how do you actually go around beating Russia in a war? You can probably kick their asses for sure in infantry related conflicts, but the state of modern war is such that today, full scale wars will not be won just with manpower. Manpower exists to occupy, safeguard (and maybe not even that), and coordinate, but really, what can one say of the case of a modern state of Total War between nuclear armed-states? The conflicts with Iraq and Georgia can't be taken as an accurate measure of how a conflict between Russia/NATO/U.S would pan out. Neither Iraq nor Georgia have the capability to bomb any city they want in the world without sending a single guy with a rifle. What we can say is that it would be one of two things: brief, very, very brief, expensive, and without precedent; Or, long, expensive, contained, brutal, and again, without precedent.

Now, add to the mix that the Russians are brought up with this idea of "country" that not most nations have, or at least to that degree, They do have something called "The Great Patriotic War". When the shit hit the fan in WWII, everyone did their part, be it building barricades or working in the industry, volunteering or being forcefully drafted. Also, if you are gonna get down and dirty with the Russians in a war of attrition, then be ready to get used to shooting at the heads of some ladies because historically they do jump into the fray as well.
Now, I'm not talking about fanaticism here, but of a kind of people that have had it rough historically, and are very likely to be rallied to one very, very specific place if need be. One thing is to fight armies, but a whole population? Is anyone willing to pay the price of "winning" that thing?

Also, Russia is so huge, that you'd have to literally come from all directions just to take a measure of control ever its territory, and even then you'd have to keep them down once put them there; you just have to take a look at Iraq or Chechenya; The wars have already turned into a guerrilla one, and don't show any signs of slowing down, the government be damned, they don't seem to have a centralized structure. You kill one and two spring in their place. It's a mess.

You can also add there the fact that, again, war isn't exactly cheap. Now, considering present conditions, would the U.S be willing to fight three wars in three distinct fronts at the same time?(Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and let's not even mention the eponymous war on terror) How would NATO proceed in case there is not complete support coming from the U.S? and STILL, what makes anyone think it would be "The World vs. Russia", exclusively? What sides would Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Pakistan, India, South Korea, etc. take on this? It's any body's guess, and I'm sure everyone out there has one.

If there is the potential for a war, then there is the potential for redrawing national borders, and then there is the potential for people to get very, very, VERY greedy.

I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to start underestimating a nuclear armed-state, much less mama Russia.

I honestly don't think you can actually beat Russia in a large scale conflict without nuking it, and well, they DO have nukes of their own. Whatever victory you get out of Russia will be a Pyhrric one, and I think the U.S, NATO & E.U know it.

Last of all, let's not forget that Russia is not waging a state of Total War on Chechenia, and as far as I gather, Russia seems to be knee deep in a guerrilla war.

BardSeed:
...How can you say we are swallowing their story? Have you watched RT and compared it with any western news-shows?...I don't want the Americans setting up bases and deploying troops and missiles all over Europe.

I've seen quite a few mainstream media outlets pushing the line that the Georgians started it. A notable minority of stories blame Russia. In the last week (or so) this seems to have improved.
As to your second point, I'm not sure what you're implying. I could've sworn the U.S. already had "troops and missiles all over Europe." Kaiserslautern, Wurzburg, Stavanger, Aviano, Mons, Vicenza, Incirlik, half a dozen RAF bases, dozens of NATO installations, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian missions, training missions... A radar installation in the Czech Republic and some ABM sites in Poland is a drop in the bucket compared to what already exists in Western Europe. I'd honestly like to have a frank and open discussion about this with you, to get a view from another shore so to speak, so feel free to PM me.

Metonym:
Well the fact is that a missile defense net is considered by all credible military sources, as a one component in a first strike weapon.

Yes, those ten interceptors are quite the shield. Especially given that any Russian strike on North America wouldn't go anywhere near their interception zone; Russian ICBMs would go over the North Pole. At least Russian ABMs would be of some use in an exchange like that. I have no interest in re-crystalizing the Cold War but the balance of the threatening moves have been coming from the East, not the West.

RufusMcLaser:

Metonym:
Well the fact is that a missile defense net is considered by all credible military sources, as a one component in a first strike weapon.

Yes, those ten interceptors are quite the shield. Especially given that any Russian strike on North America wouldn't go anywhere near their interception zone; Russian ICBMs would go over the North Pole. At least Russian ABMs would be of some use in an exchange like that. I have no interest in re-crystalizing the Cold War but the balance of the threatening moves have been coming from the East, not the West.

I'm pretty sure that's what the east is saying right now.

Beware, the Big Red Bear is going to get you.... When will you people realize that the cold war is OVER? THEY AREN'T GOING TO KILL YOU....

I have to consider this western standards thing very carefully. I'm not implying that Russia is booming, but let's not forget that they have one of the highest rates of people with higher education in Europe, and as for people being too poor to provide a market, I think things are a bit different now, and they for sure have a market; it's not like they are all in rags and stealing for food while industry is barely hanging in there. After all, Russia is no third world country; add to that that they provide VAST amounts of energy to a good chunk of Europe.

They are much better off than any Latin American country, and trust me, Brazil is no push over either. Given the fact that I live in a third world Latin American country who has an actual market, I'd be inclined to say that I need more convincing on that argument of yours. It's not whether people are poor or not, but whether there is enough flow of capital, and since most capital concentrates on a few hands, anyway, there is actual flow, for sure.

Russia isn't actually that much better of than Latin America. Last I checked, Russia had a GDP/capita of 9000$, and Brazil some 7000$. Brazil also has a slightly larger nominal total GDP (1300 billion as opposed to 1280 billion for Russia). Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world, so don't underestimate yourself! :-)

Anyway, some more rough GDP/capital numbers for comparison:
Brazil - 7,000$/capita
Russia - 9,000$/capita
Italy - 35,000$/capita
France - 40,000$/capita
Germany - 40,000$/capita
UK - 45,000$/capita
US - 45,000$/capita

Russia also suffers from major institutional problems, like wide-spread corruption; opaque and sometimes inefficient financial and capital markets; the education system, of world-class quality during the Soviet era, was hit hard by the breakdown of the Union as many teachers found themselves with little or no salary, creating a massive brain-drain. The basic educational system is still good, but it would need serious reforms to bring it back to western standards; so far little seems to be forthcoming.

Yeah, well, but how do you actually go around beating Russia in a war? You can probably kick their asses for sure in infantry related conflicts, but the state of modern war is such that today, full scale wars will not be won just with manpower. Manpower exists to occupy, safeguard (and maybe not even that), and coordinate, but really, what can one say of the case of a modern state of Total War between nuclear armed-states? The conflicts with Iraq and Georgia can't be taken as an accurate measure of how a conflict between Russia/NATO/U.S would pan out. Neither Iraq nor Georgia have the capability to bomb any city they want in the world without sending a single guy with a rifle. What we can say is that it would be one of two things: brief, very, very brief, expensive, and without precedent; Or, long, expensive, contained, brutal, and again, without precedent.

I should probably restate that all my arguments are based on this being a conventional war.

I should also probably restate my position somewhat: obviously Russia has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, but it's still in a state of disarray, and could, in my opinion, not win a conventional, full-scale war against NATO. Her navy would obviously be outnumbered and outgunned; her air force hasn't seen sufficient modernisation since Soviet times to be truly competitive; and her land forces suffer from enormous institutional deficiencies.
However, they can obviously cause a lot of damage if Putin suddenly went berserk and sent out all his bombers and subs to start blowing up civilian targets; I never said any conflict would be easy or bloodless. Nevertheless, I do not see them standing up to the combined power of NATO in a prolonged conflict.

Now, add to the mix that the Russians are brought up with this idea of "country" that not most nations have, or at least to that degree, They do have something called "The Great Patriotic War". When the shit hit the fan in WWII, everyone did their part, be it building barricades or working in the industry, volunteering or being forcefully drafted. Also, if you are gonna get down and dirty with the Russians in a war of attrition, then be ready to get used to shooting at the heads of some ladies because historically they do jump into the fray as well.
Now, I'm not talking about fanaticism here, but of a kind of people that have had it rough historically, and are very likely to be rallied to one very, very specific place if need be. One thing is to fight armies, but a whole population? Is anyone willing to pay the price of "winning" that thing?
Also, Russia is so huge, that you'd have to literally come from all directions just to take a measure of control ever its territory, and even then you'd have to keep them down once put them there; you just have to take a look at Iraq or Chechenya; The wars have already turned into a guerrilla one, and don't show any signs of slowing down, the government be damned, they don't seem to have a centralized structure. You kill one and two spring in their place. It's a mess.

Obviously no-one in their right mind would actively seek to invade Russia. NATO couldn't occupy it, but that's immaterial to my point. The West has military superiority and that's all that matters - if the Russian armed forces would be defeated in a conflict, they do not pose a credible threat.
Unfortunately, while West might win the war it would be very, very difficult to win the peace. But if the only way Russia can defeat the West is to let herself be occupied first - well, then she poses no more of a threat than Iraq did to the US, no? ;-)

You can also add there the fact that, again, war isn't exactly cheap. Now, considering present conditions, would the U.S be willing to fight three wars in three distinct fronts at the same time?(Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and let's not even mention the eponymous war on terror) How would NATO proceed in case there is not complete support coming from the U.S? and STILL, what makes anyone think it would be "The World vs. Russia", exclusively? What sides would Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Pakistan, India, South Korea, etc. take on this? It's any body's guess, and I'm sure everyone out there has one.
If there is the potential for a war, then there is the potential for redrawing national borders, and then there is the potential for people to get very, very, VERY greedy.
I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to start underestimating a nuclear armed-state, much less mama Russia.
I honestly don't think you can actually beat Russia in a large scale conflict without nuking it, and well, they DO have nukes of their own. Whatever victory you get out of Russia will be a Pyhrric one, and I think the U.S, NATO & E.U know it.
Last of all, let's not forget that Russia is not waging a state of Total War on Chechenia, and as far as I gather, Russia seems to be knee deep in a guerrilla war.

Wars aren't cheap, but since the West is economically the more powerful party, they'd come up on top again.

As for the rest of the world: few countries have anything much to gain from supporting Russia, while many (especially China and India) would stand to loose a great deal from the economic upheavals such a war would cause. Iran (and Venezuela?) would be the only possible direct allies I can think of, and while Iran could invade Iraq and cause some local trouble she has zero power projection capabilities.
China might try to go after Taiwan, but certainly not much more, and even that's not too likely. Pakistan and India might clash over Kashmir but they would pretty much cancel each other out and have limited on any global conflict. The rest of the world is largely irrelevant.

Even if the units in Chechnya aren't exactly cream of the crop; or even representational of an average Russian unit, the fact that the things that happen there are actually allowed to happen point to structural deficiencies so huge as to boggle the mind. Simply put, no modern, professional army should act like the Russian army acts in Chechnya, and I'm not even talking about human rights abuses, I'm only talking about the conduct of military operations.

To summarise: I don't think anyone is underestimating Russia, and I hope I wasn't making the impression that I did (although I see how I could have). But we shouldn't overestimate the danger she poses either: she can't tank-blitz her way through Europe like she could during the Cold War. If it actually came to a conventional war, my bet would be on the West, but not without huge (huge!) sacrifices.
The fact that Russia can't present a credible, conventional threat to the West doesn't depend on whether or not Russia could be occupied, because by that point the West would already have proven its military superiority; but on whether or not Russia could defeat the West. In its present state, I don't see how it could.

As for the nuclear option, it's far simpler to compute - everyone dies.

I hate that a handfull of fools in charge of countries gamble with peoples lives with threats like this. Its disgusting. It makes living in a society down right stupid.

werepossum:
This is all the more reason the USA should just become isolationist again. Why should we pay for a missile defense system for other countries when half of their citizens don't want it and the other half blame us for provoking Russia? My solution: "Worried about rogue nukes? Want a missile defense system? Sure, we'll help. You should, like, try to blow them up or something. Good luck with that, and be sure and let us know how that works out for you."

I only partially agree, never really was down with a country walling itself up from the rest of the world. Rather, I think that NATO and/or the UN should be implementing something like the Prime Directive here. I think that any industrialized/modernized country should stay the hell out of third-world countries, on the basis of interfering with developing civilization. If a group of people want to have a country of their own, let them prove that they're capable of holding onto one.

What I want to know is, when South Ossetia tried and failed to declare its independence from Georgia back in '92, did they actually want to be an independent nation, or did they just want to run back home to Daddy Russia? If S.O. really wants to man up and face the world on its own, then Russia's sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. But if Russia was honestly trying to take back a territory that wanted to be taken back, then I'd be willing to show some leniency.

The fact of the matter is, Russia's not telling us what exactly the real reason is. Whatever reason they've given so far is just full of logic holes. And that's suspicious as hell. I just get this itch that South Ossetia's plight is just a pretext to do something they had planned a long time ago. A justifiable pretext, maybe, but still a pretext.