China's program is in heavy development, still with 2 flight in 2 years it is still not there yet IMO (Russia has launched 9 missions in the last two years). Would not be enough to keep the ISS manned.

As said, the resources were burned quickly, while many German machines managed to work throughout the war.
Keep in mind that the bulk of Lend Lease shipments happened after 1943, the Western Front opened 1944, well after Stalingrad and Kursk. The USSR was already winning back then, it was all about who gets the control over Western Europe.

Resources are indeed the key. Napoleon took Moscow, but Alexander had enough country to retreat and gather supplies. So Napoleon had to retreat, had to take the same road his army has already ransacked. And without provisions, without precious calories his army froze to death in a relatively mild weather.

Stalin had successfully managed first to trade technologies for resources with Germany and then, after the war begun, to move the war production behind the Urals. While Germany was quickly running out of resources, the USSR was producing more and more supplies fro their troops each day. In the end, even the united European war production was not enough to keep up. It is questionable though how close Hitler was to actually winning that war given that the war production was moved in advance.

As for the nuclear war: I don't see how any side could emerge victorious from such an ordeal. Economy, not nukes is the weapon of choice. The troops are merely following to finish a weakened country.

You do realize that missile defence cannot even make a dent in a massive first strike. It is only effective if your country attacks first as an attempt to block the retaliation strike.

So, in effect, a missile defence is making the hawks in your country feel saver and be more aggressive while making hawks on the other side more nervous so both sides now want to strike first. Which makes a full-scaled conflict more, and not less, possible.

It's not as simple as that: most Ukrainian people, especially the elderly are very likely to have voted in Russia's favour. Not only because they were living side by side with Russians and are nostalgic for the good ol' times, but also because of the pensions which are about four times higher in Russia. The right-wing radicals that are very vocal among the Ukrainian government gave a strong trump to Russia as well.

As for Tatars: Tatarstan's president (federal Republic in Russian Federation) was in Crimea promoting tolerance to Russians. He is well respected among the Tatar community and was busy explaining that Tatars and Russians can indeed live peacefully together. Plus the above-mentioned economic factor. Of all groups, the Tatars are, of course, most opposed to the Russians, but you won't feed your family with politics alone.

Oh, it's far from perfect. But nonetheless the only country with a functioning manned space flight program.

EU and US did support the coup, the acting Ukrainian president doesn't even want to hide that he is sponsored by NATO, NED and State Department: http://openukraine.org/en/abou...

So the Russia supports a coup of their own.

I know both Russian and Ukrainian while being neither, have been reading a lot from both sides. The Crimeans do see Russia as a more stable alternative to the defunct Rada in Kiev.

The reasons are historical (Crimea is to 60% populated by ethnic Russians), political (a very stupid move by the coup leaders to revoke Russian language's regional status) and economical (Ukraine is bankrupt with massive social cuts pending while Russia is looking much better in comparison due to oil and gas exports). The latter is the decisive factor: the population on Crimea has seen for a long time that sailors and officers on Russian ships which are stationed there earned more money than their Ukrainian counterparts. Kiew cuts pensions in half, Moscow offers billions of economical aid.

Keep in mind that the new Ukrainian government has announced massive austerity program. Pensions in Russia are about four times higher and the economy is much healthier compared to the Ukraine. Besides, massive economic support was promised by Russia.

The Crimeans have just voted with their feet. A pity that they took the whole peninsula with them :-)

That is true, I have simplified the matter a bit for the sake of brevity. After the Munich Agreement the Czechs were betrayed again by the Brits who had a military pact with Czechoslovakia but refused to act because of a legal loophole: Slovakia has declared independency and there was no pact with Czechs.

Still, though reduced after the Munich Agreement and the loss of Slovakia, the Czech's industry was formidable at that time and the army well-equipped and was more than capable to put up with Germans: German generals later spoke very highly of Czech's defence structures and were delighted that they didn't had to take them. With the right amount of the political will, the Czechs could make at least what the Finns did to Soviets in the Winter War.

Russians have founded the two biggest cities on Crimea in 18th century and have been living there ever since. Some families lived on the peninsula as far as they can remember. And now you'd like to force them out of their home or their identity because Crimea was given to Ukrainian SSR 50 years ago with the sole purpose of reducing bureaucratic overhead. That's exactly the attitude of the now-in-powers that led to this mess.

Maybe a new service industry will arise: adjust your public-accessible timeline for a fee. Keeping all the stuff that portrays you as a hard-working person who values work more than anything in his life with quotes like: "there's no greater satisfaction than meeting the deadline" etc.

It is a must-read, IMO. Some very insightful points from the old congressman.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/ar...

US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ” Nuland said the United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”