NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=536074
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and even before, it was a fear that nuclear bombs or material may be stolen by terrorists, or transfferred by corrupt officials. Or perhaps nuclear scientists would defect. Some probably have. But now, it has recieved explicit support from Vladimir Putin, whose government is supplying nuclear material to Iran, knowing full well what they will do with it. Somehow or another, this badboy has gotta go.

Yes...and?

and anyone can do precisely what about it?

its Russia, nobody can invade it...it would be suicide, and possibly nuclear war.

and anyone can do precisely what about it?

its Russia, nobody can invade it...it would be suicide, and possibly nuclear war.
Oh, anybody can INVADE Russia, the problem is getting back out.
I suppose thats the advantage of being the largest country on the planet...you can just run away until winter comes.

Oh, anybody can INVADE Russia, the problem is getting back out.
I suppose thats the advantage of being the largest country on the planet...you can just run away until winter comes.
thats what i was saying, its suicide

Oh, anybody can INVADE Russia, the problem is getting back out.
I suppose thats the advantage of being the largest country on the planet...you can just run away until winter comes.

Getting out isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem you would face is making a new country after they level yours with their nuclear arsenal.

Who the hell would be stupid enough to invade Russia?

(dont say Bush, i get the point)

Who the hell would be stupid enough to invade Russia?

(dont say Bush, i get the point)
Bush might not be politicaly adept, but I think anybody knows that its not a good idea to invade Russia.
The last two times somebody tried it, they ended up dead in unfourtunate circumstances :P

Right, but there are no longer food shortages when you invade someone like what happened in Napoleon's army, and if we were to invade Russia, we would do it with all we have, not 2/3 like Nazi Germany.

I still think we would lose horribly, but if they invaded us...

No one needs to invade Russia. A couple of people are predicting a Russian Revolution. There is certainly a political opposition to Putin, and it seems they are more liberal than he. A solution that may be worse, though it may work, is exactly what Russia is doing now: sinking into a polluted wasteland of corrupt feudalism, a sickly and decadent populace, and extreme ignorance. It will definitly create problems, but in the future, it may become easier to isolate Russia's many WMDs. But I guess this should be expected. As Jim Woolsey said, a dragon was slayed, but the snakes are still out there, and the snakes are harder to kill.

I dont believe the Soviet Union ever broke up, but thats just my opinion...

Let's revive Stalin!

uh, you do that :rolleyes:

He wasn't such a bad guy, was he?

Let's revive Stalin!
And without him, China and India would never have the bomb.

Only about 30x worse than Hitler, if only because he lived longer.

oh no, he was excellent, he only killed 10 million of his own!

Nah, Hitler was worse, at least Stalin didnt destroy Europe...*blinks* oh yeah well, er i take it back.

Helloooooo?!?!?!

If anybody is a badboy at the moment (and for the last 15 years) it's been the USA...

1. Why are you discussing invading Russia? Cause they want to sell arms to Syria? Doesn't the USA sell arms to the majority of countries in the world (including Saddam, Pinochet and some other guys in the past)? Oh so its ok for USA to do it, but not for anyone else....
Or is it that Russia are helping Iran develop a nuclear power plant...once again how come it's ok for USA to have nuclear power plants but Iran can't? Some might say cause Iran may make nuclear weapons, once again USA has thousands of those...why can't Iran? Cause they're Muslim? Cause they're an "evil doer" (how many countries has Iran invaded in the last decade and how many has the USA)

Oh yeah and bu the way, Russia is finally getting strong economically, it still has an undefeatable army with a nuclear arsenal that can easily wipe out humanity, and at the moment has more friends in the Western world than USA does...so keep on discussing this arrogant and ultimately stupid topic

I bet Satan, Stalin, and Hitler run some sort of posse in hell.

Yeah ok, keep telling yourself that, why the hell are you accusing the USA of doing anything wrong? Do you support killing Kurds with gas? Killing innocent people because of political preferance? Thats why we invaded Iraq, for their freedom and to eliminate the tyrannistic goverment.

Let's go back to Putin. And to reiterate: it is too hard now to invade Russia. But in the future, it may be possible to safely send in troops to safely isolate the nukes, as Russia just gets weaker and weaker. Besides, Putin may leave using more peaceful means. I just hope that isn't when his term expires. Otherwise, he may handpick his successor, and he may be worse.

By evil doer he meant that they oppress the liberty of their people. Im interested what country you come from.

Yeah ok, keep telling yourself that, why the hell are you accusing the USA of doing anything wrong? Do you support killing Kurds with gas? Killing innocent people because of political preferance? Thats why we invaded Iraq, for their freedom and to eliminate the tyrannistic goverment.

Hmmmm they are really thankfull for their freedom....right now they are excercising their right to kill about 1500 of your soldiers...gee thanks guys.

First of all son, you already intervened back in 1990 (Bush the first,remember) "for the kurds and the innocent people" ...this time it was for OIL...end of story, at least accept it and stop lying to yourself

By evil doer he meant that they oppress the liberty of their people. Im interested what country you come from.

There is an organisation that monitors the liberty of other peoples...you may have heard of it, its called the United Nations! Your illegal interventions are doing much much more harm than good, and are frankly illegal.

The matter with you Americans is that you beleive the shit that your two-party state sells you...

You call freeing Kuwait a greedy move? Chances are your own country was involved! Not all Iraqi's are radical just to let you know

I am a Socialist, not a republican or democrat.

You call freeing Kuwait a greedy move? Chances are your own country was involved! Not all Iraqi's are radical just to let you know

Nope, read my post again, only slower this time...
I said that freeing innocents, Kurds, freedom, liberty blah blah blah was what the first gulf war was about, and it was sort of backed by the international community...it was a reply to an international incident involving two countries (IRAQ AND kUWAIT)

What I subsequently said was that the second Iraqi war had none of those characteristics...put simply it was a money/oil grab (whats that movie with George Cloney called, The Three Kings?)

What a swell job the UN is doing, you know with giving all of their funds to the needy, and not being greedy....

I rhyme! :p

Ah yes, sorry about that

In response to the supposed "money grab" i tell you that we havent seen a penny come from Iraq, just raising gas prices and unemployment, what wonders this is doing for our economy :rolleyes:

In response to the supposed "money grab" i tell you that we havent seen a penny come from Iraq, just raising gas prices and unemployment, what wonders this is doing for our economy :rolleyes:

Well no one said that this is supposed to do wonders for you...you see, you dont matter and nobody cares, you are about the same as an average citizen in Baghdad except that he has bullets flying around his head...the similarity is that you're both getting fucked by the same people...

I bet Dick Chaney, the Bush family, Halliburton, the good people at Lockheed Martin and the gang arent complaining about gas prices at the moment

well thats true

Im guessing you are from a former Soviet State, may i ask you why you disapprove of America so much? Is it us the citizens or our politicians?

I am a Socialist, not a republican or democrat.
I see. So you want to talk to them, and hope that it makes Putin throw away his nukes.

I see. So you want to talk to them, and hope that it makes Putin throw away his nukes.

Thats the whole point, why should Putin throw away his nukes? Why should Iran no have a nuclear power plant?
Let me just remind you that in the last 2 billion years, nuclear weapons have only been used as an act of war twice. By the USA at Hiroshima and you guessed it, by the USA at Nagasaki

The Usa Probably Saved 10 Times The Amount Of Civilians Who Died In Those Explosions, And In Addition, Saved Countless Numbers Of Soldiers On Both Sides!!!!!!

Thats the whole point, why should Putin throw away his nukes? Why should Iran no have a nuclear power plant?
Let me just remind you that in the last 2 billion years, nuclear weapons have only been used as an act of war twice. By the USA at Hiroshima and you guessed it, by the USA at Nagasaki
Because the US, and the rest of the world, were eager to wipe out the fascist disease from Japan. More cities need to be nuked, not less. Now much of the world is safe. Yet Iran threatens that stabillity. If Iran gets a nuke, Tel Aviv may be a crater. Or it can give a nuke to terrorists, like Hizb'Allah.

Thats the whole point, why should Putin throw away his nukes? Why should Iran no have a nuclear power plant?
Let me just remind you that in the last 2 billion years, nuclear weapons have only been used as an act of war twice. By the USA at Hiroshima and you guessed it, by the USA at Nagasaki

And used to good effect. Quick way to end the war. I have been to the Peace Dome in Hiroshima. A cold day in January last year. Gray, the museum shut down cause it was a holiday and the streets empty. Rather awe inspiring.
In war you use the weapons you have at hand to end the war as quickly as possible. The US should feel no guilt for using them.
I have no problem with Putin, he is a hell of a lot better than the previous guy, dammit my mind has blanked! What is the hell was his name? Anyway, he was a weak, corrupt man and at least Putin has given the Russians some strength of purpose again. I may not agree with everything he does but over all he is okay.

I have no problem with Putin, he is a hell of a lot better than the previous guy, dammit my mind has blanked! What is the hell was his name? Anyway, he was a weak, corrupt man and at least Putin has given the Russians some strength of purpose again. I may not agree with everything he does but over all he is okay.
Yeltsin wasn't terribly effective, but at least he himself was committed to reforming the country. If Putin went on the same path Yeltsin did, Russia would only improve.

Because the US, and the rest of the world, were eager to wipe out the fascist disease from Japan. More cities need to be nuked, not less. Now much of the world is safe. Yet Iran threatens that stabillity. If Iran gets a nuke, Tel Aviv may be a crater. Or it can give a nuke to terrorists, like Hizb'Allah.

What are you basing these fears on? I was just making a point, that Americans feel they have a God given right to carry out pre-emptive strikes, attack countries without UN approval, nuke cities....and all the time you accuse others of planning attacks and the likes.

Look at Iraq, please dont start with liberty and freedom blah blah blah, prior to the invasion all we heard was NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AL QAIDA LINKS........and? Oh all of a sudden we should all forget that shit cause the war was good even if it was unjustifiable since we brought "freedom and blah blah" to the innocent people of IRAQ....

Now its Iran...what has Iran ever done to you? Sure they think that you're evil but so a large number of people and countries worldwide. And lets not forget that thousands of Iranians died from American weapons given to Saddam (before he "became an evil doer") back in the eighties

Now its Iran...what has Iran ever done to you? Sure they think that you're evil but so a large number of people and countries worldwide. And lets not forget that thousands of Iranians died from American weapons given to Saddam (before he "became an evil doer") back in the eighties
Iran is a dying terrorist regime that is becoming weaker by the year. That makes it more and more dangerous, as they will have less and less to loose. I agree that their supplier, A.Q. Khan, is far more dangerous, but that doesn't excuse Iran.

Yeltsin wasn't terribly effective, but at least he himself was committed to reforming the country. If Putin went on the same path Yeltsin did, Russia would only improve.

Russia HAS improved. Look at their budget surplus and look at your deficit...for the first time Russia is on better terms with Germany and France than they are with USA...

In regards to the democracy/Yukos issues, you really should take a closer look at US politicians in control of companies that got the biggest contracts in Iqaq......frankly it is unclear where goverment stops and big business starts in USA

Russia HAS improved. Look at their budget surplus and look at your deficit...for the first time Russia is on better terms with Germany and France than they are with USA...

In regards to the democracy/Yukos issues, you really should take a closer look at US politicians in control of companies that got the biggest contracts in Iqaq......frankly it is unclear where goverment stops and big business starts in USA
Yes, but does the government appoint governors? Do they stiffle the media, and try to rig elections? Disagree with me all you want, but that doesn't change my opinion that you are ideaologically bankrupt.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=536074
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and even before, it was a fear that nuclear bombs or material may be stolen by terrorists, or transfferred by corrupt officials. Or perhaps nuclear scientists would defect. Some probably have. But now, it has recieved explicit support from Vladimir Putin, whose government is supplying nuclear material to Iran, knowing full well what they will do with it. Somehow or another, this badboy has gotta go.
Now you want to take out Russia as well as Iran and NK? This line of reasoning borders on insanity on your part?

Besides, did you read the article, which clearly states:

Under the deal, Russia will provide nuclear fuel to Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant as a safeguard to ensure it cannot be diverted into a weapons program. Iran has also agreed to allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries.

The US does not rule the world yet?

As a Russian, I figured I would respond to this.

First, for those saying anything remotely resembling invading Russia, forget it. To conduct a successful invasion, the US would need completely air superiority, which would be ridiculously difficult to achieve over Russia for several reasons-the size of the country itself, the fact that the Russian Air Force is no push over, and the air defense network is still one of the best in the world, particularly around Moscow. The Russian Army is still far more powerful than you give it credit for (trust me, I know first hand). Someone mentioned putting troops on the ground to seize the nuclear facilities. Do you really know what you would be throwing your men up against if you do that? I imagine the best troops in the US military are the Delta Force in a situation like that. They are a small force though, not large in number as far as I know. Now do you know who guards our nuclear facilities? The Vyampel unit, one of the branches of what's called Spetsnaz (very broad term, combination word-comes from the words Voiska Spetsialnogo Naznacheniya, troops of special purposes). One of the best trained forces in our military, and one of the ones that receives new weaponry and equipment first. It would be suicide to attempt to conduct large scale military operations in Russia.

Second, for the situation in Russia. I must admit, I'm nervous. The economy is starting to improve, yes. But if change is going to happen, it will be because the military revolts. Conditions in the VSR, particularly the Army, are very bad, especially for regular conscripts in a Motor Rifle unit. One of the units where the soldiers are treated worst is the 20th Motor Rifle. That unit also earned a..."name" for itself, you may say, in Chechnya. The situation in the armed forces is bad because troops are drafted, and the draftees oftentimes are from the lowest classes, the uneducated, many in poor physical condition upon entering the military. Then the treatment they receive in basic training and you have a recipe for disaster.

What are you basing these fears on? I was just making a point, that Americans feel they have a God given right to carry out pre-emptive strikes, attack countries without UN approval, nuke cities....and all the time you accuse others of planning attacks and the likes.

Look at Iraq, please dont start with liberty and freedom blah blah blah, prior to the invasion all we heard was NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AL QAIDA LINKS........and? Oh all of a sudden we should all forget that shit cause the war was good even if it was unjustifiable since we brought "freedom and blah blah" to the innocent people of IRAQ....

Now its Iran...what has Iran ever done to you? Sure they think that you're evil but so a large number of people and countries worldwide. And lets not forget that thousands of Iranians died from American weapons given to Saddam (before he "became an evil doer") back in the eighties
All good points that you have raised here but with Iran, you forgot to mention the US's earlier mucking in Iranian politics:

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979, except for a brief period in 1953 when Prime Minister Muhammed Mosaddeq overthrew him. Mosaddeq was in turn overthrown with assistance from the U.S., and the shah was returned to power as a U.S. ally.

As a Russian, I figured I would respond to this.

First, for those saying anything remotely resembling invading Russia, forget it. To conduct a successful invasion, the US would need completely air superiority, which would be ridiculously difficult to achieve over Russia for several reasons-the size of the country itself, the fact that the Russian Air Force is no push over, and the air defense network is still one of the best in the world, particularly around Moscow. The Russian Army is still far more powerful than you give it credit for (trust me, I know first hand). Someone mentioned putting troops on the ground to seize the nuclear facilities. Do you really know what you would be throwing your men up against if you do that? I imagine the best troops in the US military are the Delta Force in a situation like that. They are a small force though, not large in number as far as I know. Now do you know who guards our nuclear facilities? The Vyampel unit, one of the branches of what's called Spetsnaz (very broad term, combination word-comes from the words Voiska Spetsialnogo Naznacheniya, troops of special purposes). One of the best trained forces in our military, and one of the ones that receives new weaponry and equipment first. It would be suicide to attempt to conduct large scale military operations in Russia.

Second, for the situation in Russia. I must admit, I'm nervous. The economy is starting to improve, yes. But if change is going to happen, it will be because the military revolts. Conditions in the VSR, particularly the Army, are very bad, especially for regular conscripts in a Motor Rifle unit. One of the units where the soldiers are treated worst is the 20th Motor Rifle. That unit also earned a..."name" for itself, you may say, in Chechnya. The situation in the armed forces is bad because troops are drafted, and the draftees oftentimes are from the lowest classes, the uneducated, many in poor physical condition upon entering the military. Then the treatment they receive in basic training and you have a recipe for disaster.

It's a tragedy, the fate that befell Russia in the last thirty years, and I say that as Brit. Heck, with the U.S.S.R. there, the world had some balance to it. Balance is good, as we are all aware, because neither side wants to do anything too rash and if they do then the other side will counter it.

Curiosity compels me to ask (and I apologise for asking what must be an annoyingly familiar question): what're your feelings on the transition from U.S.S.R. to C.I.S?

Concerning the situation there at the moment, I worry somewhat about a lot of things in Russia. To my eye, it seems a strange mix of the first and third worlds, and I'm not sure how far the first-world can progress, because the third-world keeps dragging it back. The army is a classic example. If the Russian conscript army was abolished and disbanded next week, it would, in my view, be a boon for the armed forces and the economy, probably the country as a whole (that many able-bodied men suddenly entering the workforce in a country which is still rebuilding its tattered economy can't be too bad a thing, especially when they'll work for peanuts). The Russian armed forces should by rights be one of the best on earth, and in parts are - but the massive burden of the conscript system is surely a drain upon resources that could be better used in equipping and training a smaller and more professional force.

Curiosity again: were you a conscript or a career soldier? I noted your comment about having experienced it "first hand" y'see.

All good points that you have raised here but with Iran, you forgot to mention the US's earlier mucking in Iranian politics:

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979, except for a brief period in 1953 when Prime Minister Muhammed Mosaddeq overthrew him. Mosaddeq was in turn overthrown with assistance from the U.S., and the shah was returned to power as a U.S. ally.

*yawn*
And yet Canada built India a nuclear reactor! Which directly led to India developing a plutonium bomb!
"Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada."

Talk about making the world a "more dangerous place"..... :rolleyes:

What are you basing these fears on? I was just making a point, that Americans feel they have a God given right to carry out pre-emptive strikes, attack countries without UN approval, nuke cities....and all the time you accuse others of planning attacks and the likes.

Look at Iraq, please dont start with liberty and freedom blah blah blah, prior to the invasion all we heard was NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AL QAIDA LINKS........and? Oh all of a sudden we should all forget that shit cause the war was good even if it was unjustifiable since we brought "freedom and blah blah" to the innocent people of IRAQ....

Now its Iran...what has Iran ever done to you? Sure they think that you're evil but so a large number of people and countries worldwide. And lets not forget that thousands of Iranians died from American weapons given to Saddam (before he "became an evil doer") back in the eighties
Americans don't feel that God has given them the right to carry out pre-emptive attacks. You're generalizing the ideology and philosophy of 290+ million people. Don't be so dumb, please.

Americans also don't feel that it's perfectly moral to nuke cities. You have no idea about the history behind the use of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't presume.

Iran supports and harbors terrorists. The fear is that they will supply terrorists with nuclear arms. I believe you can agree that that would be a bad thing. If you don't, you sir, are dumb.

Russia HAS improved. Look at their budget surplus and look at your deficit...for the first time Russia is on better terms with Germany and France than they are with USA...
Russia's economy has improved - how could it not after they abandoned communism? But corruption is rampant in business and government, and the government is moving towards authoritarianism more every day. It's not all beer and skittles for the Soviets.

If anyone hasn't read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
From the BBC:
Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed

The signing had been delayed several times Russia and Iran have signed an agreement for Moscow to supply fuel to Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
Under the deal Iran has to return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia.


This sounds encouraging.....

You have to understand, I'm biased. My father was a Red Army officer, a captain in the Paratroops before trasnferring to state security (KGB is how you would know it). My grandfather as well, was a Colonel-General in the Red Army and served in the Patriotic War, at Stalingrad, and the Kursk. I grew up surrounded by basically men that were sworn to defend the Soviet Union to the last. My oldest brother died in the Afghan war, which I must admit hurt badly, and did leave me wondering-what for? Was that really in the best interests of the Soviet Union? But I must say, I did support the CCCP. In retrospect, the economic model was obviously utterly flawed; and would have lead to our demise anyway. But at least then Russia received her due, you would never hear someone say "Russia is weak now" when we were the Soviet Union.

On my personal note; I certainly wouldn't call myself a career soldier, no. But I did enlist, I wasn't drafted into the Army like some. It was fully my decision, as much of a mistake as that may have been. But it's like anything else, there were good things and bad things about it; I think I'm a better person for having done it. And of course, I still have some of that old unit pride-Artillery! :D

*yawn*
And yet Canada built India a nuclear reactor! Which directly led to India developing a plutonium bomb!
"Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada."

Talk about making the world a "more dangerous place"..... :rolleyes:
Perhaps you are unaware that Canada, the UK and the US developed most of the first atomic bomb jointly?

Do you know that the US is the world's largest arms supplier (http://english.people.com.cn/200406/10/eng20040610_145920.html)?

Ah, Russian artillery. I believe the phrase is "bog voiny," which is pretty apt all things considered. Anyway, your forebears = just plain cool. Anyone who could get through the Patriotic War was pretty damned tough (and lucky), and anyone who can jump out of a plane that isn't falling from the skies is plain nuts. :D And hey, at least there are some people around who appreciate that attacking Russia would be analogous to laying your balls on a red-hot grill.

If anyone hasn't read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
From the BBC:
Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed

The signing had been delayed several times Russia and Iran have signed an agreement for Moscow to supply fuel to Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
Under the deal Iran has to return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia.


This sounds encouraging.....
Well maybe Bush should stay consistent and start threatening Russia as well as Iran and NK.

Perhaps Cold War 2 will have to precede WW3?

Ah, Russian artillery. I believe the phrase is "bog voiny," which is pretty apt all things considered. Anyway, your forebears = just plain cool. Anyone who could get through the Patriotic War was pretty damned tough (and lucky), and anyone who can jump out of a plane that isn't falling from the skies is plain nuts. :D And hey, at least there are some people around who appreciate that attacking Russia would be analogous to laying your balls on a red-hot grill.
I feel the PAIN!! :eek:

Now, jumping out of an airplane isn't as bad as it seems. I was airborne qualified...but no. Just no. I'm too big to be a paratrooper, I was a casualty waiting to happen if I was to be sent regularly into the field in somewhere like Chechnya. But papa was a tough guy, yeah, and it's what he told me before joining the Army-if you jump out of an airplane, don't be scared....unless your parachute doesn't work. Then you can be scared. Needless to say, mildly unnerving for a 17 year old kid about to go off to training. Artillery was far more to my liking, even if it was extremely physical, heavy work; except for our area being directly attacked from sappers, we usually didn't have to go into the hot shit, just waited for the call where to direct out fire. Artillery has traditionally been the best units as well-again, it may be the pride speaking. :D

Y'know, your dad might want to take some lessons in the whole "how not to worry your progeny" thing. :D Myself, if I were to join any army unit I'd plump for tanks, despite their being cramped, unpleasant steel and ceramic coffins. 'Course, if the tank burns so do you. I remember seeing a film once of these Red Army tankers who'd bailed out, and don't think anything ever made me more cautious about fire in my life. As a matter of fact, I pity even more the poor bloody tankers in Chechnya (let alone the BMP and BTR crews). They can't even see who's shooting at them, for heaven's sake.

Incidentally, all you lot claiming Russia's funding indirectly Iranian-assisted terror, I remember hearing not a few times that the USA had sponsored the Chechens in order to keep Russian attentions - and military capacity - focussed on them. Only a rumour, of course.

That was one of the biggest disasters in the first Chechen war. The armor rolled right into Grozniy, without infantry support, and bandits were literally able to run right up to the tanks, and hit them with explosives to cripple and destroy them. It was a catastrophe. That's why when we invaded the second time, we moved very slowly and surrounded Grozniy before invading it. Gave the civilians something like 5 days warning to leave the city. Then the Rocket Artillery (bloody Katyusha wussies :D ) opened up and pounded it, along with the Air Force. That's the reason the casualties for the new war and Operation Horseshoe haven't been as high as the war in 1994. And I think a change in leadership-Yel'tsin, that stupid drunk, nearly destroyed the country and had no idea how to run a war. He was probably drunk off his ass when the armor was sent into Grozniy. If you're a Brit though, Armor isn't too bad-I know the UK has the Crusader tank, which is very good. The Germans have the Leopard II, and in Russia the T-90 has entered production, albeit slow production. Tanks are definitely a nice asset to have available, as long as they're properly supported. But you wouldn't get me into one, I think I'm a bit too claustrophobic for that crap. Let the little midgets take care of that. ;)

Aaaaah what a relief to finally have a few objective and intelligent people join the discussion.
There is nothing more annoying than trying to have a civillised debate with a bunch of Americans (i hope that the majority does not have the same views) who insist that their foreign policy is based on idealistic terms such as liberty, freedom, democracy etc. Add to this the unbeleivable arrogance that comes hand in hand with such posts and it makes you want to smash the keyboard with your head.

Aaaaah what a relief to finally have a few objective and intelligent people join the discussion.
There is nothing more annoying than trying to have a civillised debate with a bunch of Americans (i hope that the majority does not have the same views) who insist that their foreign policy is based on idealistic terms such as liberty, freedom, democracy etc. Add to this the unbeleivable arrogance that comes hand in hand with such posts and it makes you want to smash the keyboard with your head.


I just saw your name, so sorry if the following makes no sense....

Ty govorish po-russkiy? Otkuda ty?

I just saw your name, so sorry if the following makes no sense....

Ty govorish po-russkiy? Otkuda ty?

Nyet....panemayem
Beograd, Serbia ===> Sydney, Australia

Nyet....panemayem
Beograd, Serbia ===> Sydney, Australia


Hej, Sloveni!

Ja ne govorit mnogo Srpski...ok, I suck, sorry. :D

The love of my life is a Serbian though, beautiful girl, and I've been there before-much love to your country and your people, brother Slav.

*gasp* President Putin is taking use of his nation's sovereign right!
http://2gunzup.com/ohnoes.jpg

Hej, Sloveni!

Ja ne govorit mnogo Srpski...ok, I suck, sorry. :D

The love of my life is a Serbian though, beautiful girl, and I've been there before-much love to your country and your people, brother Slav.

Spasiba...all the best to you brother and good luck with the dyevushka

Spasiba...all the best to you brother and good luck with the dyevushka

Haha, thanks....women from there sure can be confusing at times, man. But that's a story for a different time. How's summer Down Under treating you?

That was one of the biggest disasters in the first Chechen war. The armor rolled right into Grozniy, without infantry support, and bandits were literally able to run right up to the tanks, and hit them with explosives to cripple and destroy them. It was a catastrophe. That's why when we invaded the second time, we moved very slowly and surrounded Grozniy before invading it. Gave the civilians something like 5 days warning to leave the city. Then the Rocket Artillery (bloody Katyusha wussies :D ) opened up and pounded it, along with the Air Force. That's the reason the casualties for the new war and Operation Horseshoe haven't been as high as the war in 1994. And I think a change in leadership-Yel'tsin, that stupid drunk, nearly destroyed the country and had no idea how to run a war. He was probably drunk off his ass when the armor was sent into Grozniy. If you're a Brit though, Armor isn't too bad-I know the UK has the Crusader tank, which is very good. The Germans have the Leopard II, and in Russia the T-90 has entered production, albeit slow production. Tanks are definitely a nice asset to have available, as long as they're properly supported. But you wouldn't get me into one, I think I'm a bit too claustrophobic for that crap. Let the little midgets take care of that. ;)

*Winces* Fuckin' hell, I'm surprised the tankers didn't mutiny when they got the order. How in hell did Generals, RUSSIAN Generals of all people, forget the cardinal lesson that armour must always be supported by infantry? *Sigh* People never learn...still, better second time round... so I suppose they must learn. That said, no tank could survive what the Chechens did to those T-72s and T-80s. Heck, the Tigers couldn't take it back in WWII. Personally, I can't see why they didn't use the TO (OT?)-62 more often. Flamethrower tanks are so much fun after all, and very good for one's own men's morale. That said, seeing a couple of divisional sets of Katyushas (presumably Smerch and Uragan units at that!) flatten the entire city was pretty rousing. I remember watching MiG-29s making ground-attack runs on TV and thinking "you get those bastards, lads!"

Regarding British tanks, I'm proud to say our tanks do rock. Having sat within the confines of the Chally-II, however, I have to say that it'd be not much fun being a 6-foot tank crewman. On the plus side, in a T-90 I could fire the NSVT without having to stand up or anything. ;)

6 foot is a spot bit tall for a tanker. But yes, I basically agreed when I watched the Katyusha boys begin to load up and prepare to punish Grozniy-although I would never openly say to them "Go get them, comrades"; I certainly was thinking it. That's the one time I would have actually wanted to be on the line, was taking Grozniy-but then again, I'm 6'5 and some, I think I'm a bit too big of a target-hence my being an Artillerist. But even in WWII, if I remember, Brit armor was no joke-my history may be hazy, but wasn't it you all who took Rommel at El-Alamein? I may just be getting mixed up though. I don't know what the hell was wrong with our general back then-luckily, today our upcoming generals and colonels who are about to be Generals are Afghan War veterans. Finally, we get competent men with real life experience fighting a war similar to the current one to lead our men to glorious victory. Of course, I'm ranting a bit now, but the reforms in the military do please me. And hey, if you learn Russian, come on over and join the VSR, Serve the Motherland! We can use all the good men we can get. :D

Okay, everyone that invaded Russia (save for the Mongolians) have failed to ever conquer it. That damn winter *shakes fist*

As for the soviet union, if there are any other pravda readers in here, you may be interested to know that four of the old republics have signed a document to create a new union. Russia-Belarus will merge by early 2006 and by 2007, Ukraine (maybe not anymore) and Kazakstan have both signed to join. The rest of the CIS members have vowed to also rejoin by 2008.

za nasu sovetsku rodinu

Okay, everyone that invaded Russia (save for the Mongolians) have failed to ever conquer it. That damn winter *shakes fist*

As for the soviet union, if there are any other pravda readers in here, you may be interested to know that four of the old republics have signed a document to create a new union. Russia-Belarus will merge by early 2006 and by 2007, Ukraine (maybe not anymore) and Kazakstan have both signed to join. The rest of the CIS members have vowed to also rejoin by 2008.

za nasu sovetsku rodinu


Ediniy, moguchiy Sovetskiy Soyuz....

I knew Belarus was supposed to rejoin, and I knew Kazakhstan and Russia were strengthening ties. But the Ukraine? I never figured they would want to rejoin us, I know already they were in the process of unifying and bringing the Belarussian Armed Forces into line and preparing to merge with the VSR.

Well I'll be damned! There's life in the old girl yet, eh? *Grins manically and winds up all 7 recordings of the Russian and Soviet anthem(s)*
Slavsya otechestvo, nashe svobodnoye, indeed.

On the subject of the Russian army, it's good to read of the new generation of senior officers. I found it terribly sad that so many Soviet soldiers were condemned to death by a flawed, stupidly-executed paper plan for a different kind of war. Hopefully, with a new generation of top men, the Russian armed forces can lift themselves from their doldrums - the first step of which would be reducing the conscript forces, IMO.

Oh, and in WWII, our tanks were, to be honest, shit. There really was no comparison between the old Cromwell, or the Churchill or Comet, and the T-34/76, let alone the IS series or the Pzkpfw V and VI. The fact was that whenever our tankers came into contact with Panthers or Tigers, they were almost invariably slaughtered. An astonishing example of this was at Villiers-Bocage in June 1944, in which four Tigers obliterated an entire Britiah armoured regiment for no loss. In-bloody-credible, and it was such engagements that made us so determined to produce tanks like the Chieftain, which had enormous firepower (120mm rifled gun, which was the largest in any MBT until the T-64...damn T-64, it was such a great tank...) and heavy armour at the expense of mobility.

Y'know, your dad might want to take some lessons in the whole "how not to worry your progeny" thing. :D Myself, if I were to join any army unit I'd plump for tanks, despite their being cramped, unpleasant steel and ceramic coffins. 'Course, if the tank burns so do you. I remember seeing a film once of these Red Army tankers who'd bailed out, and don't think anything ever made me more cautious about fire in my life. As a matter of fact, I pity even more the poor bloody tankers in Chechnya (let alone the BMP and BTR crews). They can't even see who's shooting at them, for heaven's sake.

Incidentally, all you lot claiming Russia's funding indirectly Iranian-assisted terror, I remember hearing not a few times that the USA had sponsored the Chechens in order to keep Russian attentions - and military capacity - focussed on them. Only a rumour, of course.
Not to forget that the US armed the mujahdeen (Taliban) in Afghanistan to the teeth to help them push the Russians out.

Okay, everyone that invaded Russia (save for the Mongolians) have failed to ever conquer it. That damn winter *shakes fist*

As for the soviet union, if there are any other pravda readers in here, you may be interested to know that four of the old republics have signed a document to create a new union. Russia-Belarus will merge by early 2006 and by 2007, Ukraine (maybe not anymore) and Kazakstan have both signed to join. The rest of the CIS members have vowed to also rejoin by 2008.

za nasu sovetsku rodinu


You have an English link for this? I find this hard to believe. Not that I dont believe you. But would like to read it myself.

Now you want to take out Russia as well as Iran and NK? This line of reasoning borders on insanity on your part?

Besides, did you read the article, which clearly states:

Under the deal, Russia will provide nuclear fuel to Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant as a safeguard to ensure it cannot be diverted into a weapons program. Iran has also agreed to allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries.

The US does not rule the world yet?
There are ways of getting rid of regimes without military action. I suggest that the world treads lightly. Russia's application to the WTO must be denied, and its membership in the G8 is to be suspended indefinatly.
As for that one clause, it is woefully insufficient. Putin knows full well that the Iranians are building nukes. He is sending fuel into the country, and whether or not it is returned, it will still get sufficient use.

There are ways of getting rid of regimes without military action. I suggest that the world treads lightly. Russia's application to the WTO must be denied, and its membership in the G8 is to be suspended indefinatly.
As for that one clause, it is woefully insufficient. Putin knows full well that the Iranians are building nukes. He is sending fuel into the country, and whether or not it is returned, it will still get sufficient use.


Are you truly so arrogant to presume you can speak down to Russia and tell us how to run our nation? All you do by suspending us from G8 is shoot yourself in the foot. Do you truly think the Germans won't carry on conducting business and setting up their factories and such in Russia? This helps the Russian economy, much in the same way Germany helped the Republic of Ireland's current economic boom. Do you think suddenly because the WTO or G8 or some other group of Western buffoons has decided to play morality with us that the People's Republic of China will stop conducting business with us? Or India? Or France? Save your naive, moralistic assumptions for elsewhere, they don't work in the real word.

Bah, who cares if he is anyway? Heck, I'm tired of having Americans lord it over us like some kind of demi-Gods. I like Americans as individuals, but the nation...unh.

Might I ask also, have none of you read history a bit? The last time the west forbade Russia from joining a major international organisation (the LoN) they simply said "sod you" and set up their own. And one notes that those nations not members of the G8 have not yet collapsed, and that if Russia were expelled from the G8, it could very easily stick stonkingly high tariffs on anything from the west, and anything exported thereto.

ahem 56k warning! click (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html)

Are you truly so arrogant to presume you can speak down to Russia and tell us how to run our nation? All you do by suspending us from G8 is shoot yourself in the foot. Do you truly think the Germans won't carry on conducting business and setting up their factories and such in Russia? This helps the Russian economy, much in the same way Germany helped the Republic of Ireland's current economic boom. Do you think suddenly because the WTO or G8 or some other group of Western buffoons has decided to play morality with us that the People's Republic of China will stop conducting business with us? Or India? Or France? Save your naive, moralistic assumptions for elsewhere, they don't work in the real word.
All I am saying is that Vladimir Putin is a destabilizing force in the region, and that he has got to go. Besides, he's hardly any good for Russia anyhow. Yeltsin was better than Putin, and he wasn't the best, either.

All I am saying is that Vladimir Putin is a destabilizing force in the region, and that he has got to go. Besides, he's hardly any good for Russia anyhow. Yeltsin was better than Putin, and he wasn't the best, either.


Fool, Yel'tsin was a drunk who nearly destroyed the country. Yel'tsin had no place running the country. If anything Putin is a stabilizing and strong force, necessary for continued improvement in Russia.

Fool, Yel'tsin was a drunk who nearly destroyed the country. Yel'tsin had no place running the country. If anything Putin is a stabilizing and strong force, necessary for continued improvement in Russia.
And is miserable for global security. Russia is also no where near its potential. I believe that it can only do that by using a model tried all over the world: a strong judiciary, then a market economy, followed by democracy. Russia did democracy first, leading to an ultrawealthy elite, and the phenomenon of "elected autocrats" as Fareed Zakaria calls them. France in the 1960s was the first, when they elected de Gaulles. Venezuela and Zimbabwe are going through the same problems today.

Democracy is a joke, a farce that has no history and no future in Russia, slava bogu. Market economy is by all means fine. But Putin continues to reform the military and strengthen the country; as it should be. I discussed this with my British friend earlier-the conscript system being phazed out. By 2011 the conscription is to be completely phazed out. The military becomes stronger, which is good, and if you think it is bad for global security, praytell how a strong Russian military is a bad thing? Or a Russia with an improving economy?

Democracy is a joke, a farce that has no history and no future in Russia, slava bogu. Market economy is by all means fine. But Putin continues to reform the military and strengthen the country; as it should be. I discussed this with my British friend earlier-the conscript system being phazed out. By 2011 the conscription is to be completely phazed out. The military becomes stronger, which is good, and if you think it is bad for global security, praytell how a strong Russian military is a bad thing? Or a Russia with an improving economy?
First off, as I said, democracy can only work with a strong judiciary and a market economy. Gorbachev had far too much glasnost before there was enough perestroika.
Secondly, nothing is wrong with a strong Russian miltary, but only in the right hands. Putin shows a willingness to interfere heavily in the Caucausus and Eastern Europe, against even its best interests. Now there is this, which is basically no better than nuclear terrorism. Putin knows full well that Iran will use it for its nuclear program, and it is anything but peaceful.

Interfering in the Caucasus, which are ours anyway, is bad? When I say democracy is a farce, I mean it won't work in Russia, and should just be forgotten and done away with there. Russia needs a strong leader who can lead the country. I suppose you're refering to Putin's interference in the Ukrainian election? In case you hadn't noticed earlier, the CCCP is on the verge of willingly reforming. Belarus is already about to rejoin Russia. The Baltic? Pah, they can be invaded, I would like to see NATO attempt to do something to stop us from retaking them. Already Lithuania pushes us by causing problems for our residents in Kaliningrad, as if they're trying to test our resolve. These upstart little states should be handled, and rapidly.

Interfering in the Caucasus, which are ours anyway, is bad? When I say democracy is a farce, I mean it won't work in Russia, and should just be forgotten and done away with there. Russia needs a strong leader who can lead the country. I suppose you're refering to Putin's interference in the Ukrainian election? In case you hadn't noticed earlier, the CCCP is on the verge of willingly reforming. Belarus is already about to rejoin Russia. The Baltic? Pah, they can be invaded, I would like to see NATO attempt to do something to stop us from retaking them. Already Lithuania pushes us by causing problems for our residents in Kaliningrad, as if they're trying to test our resolve. These upstart little states should be handled, and rapidly.
Oh God. We have a Communist! Go and play with your little fantasies of a worker's world revolution, and ask for the recreation of GOSPLAN and the Politboro.
It really is sad that such people like you that think that communism and Russian nationalism are compatible, while at the same time, pretending as if the Warsaw Pact never dissolved. You guys are living in 1989, and never realized that the world has moved on. Luckily, none of what you want will happen. The CCCP died a long time ago, and so did Russian enslavement of a third of the world.

Oh God. We have a Communist! Go and play with your little fantasies of a worker's world revolution, and ask for the recreation of GOSPLAN and the Politboro.
It really is sad that such people like you that think that communism and Russian nationalism are compatible, while at the same time, pretending as if the Warsaw Pact never dissolved. You guys are living in 1989, and never realized that the world has moved on. Luckily, none of what you want will happen. The CCCP died a long time ago, and so did Russian enslavement of a third of the world.


Guess what, moron. I'm not a communist. I'm from the CCCP. I have no desire to return to the economy of the CCCP, or state planned economy; therefore I am not communist. World worker's revolution? I don't give a damn about the world's workers-I care about Russia's workers. I bet you're some Yank who has no idea what Communism was, or what it was like in the CCCP besides from your little books. And guess what? Come back to me at the end of this decade. Hopefully by then Putin or someone will have full control without this democracy foolishness and will finally have employed tactical nuclear weapons in Chechnya. You foolish American, continue in your sheltered, naive, idealistic little world where everyone wants "freedom" and "democracy". Enslavement? Do you know all the benifits that the member republics got out of being a part of the CCCP? Bet not. So shut your mouth before you presume to speak, child.

Guess what, moron. I'm not a communist. I'm from the CCCP. I have no desire to return to the economy of the CCCP, or state planned economy; therefore I am not communist. World worker's revolution? I don't give a damn about the world's workers-I care about Russia's workers. I bet you're some Yank who has no idea what Communism was, or what it was like in the CCCP besides from your little books. And guess what? Come back to me at the end of this decade. Hopefully by then Putin or someone will have full control without this democracy foolishness and will finally have employed tactical nuclear weapons in Chechnya. You foolish American, continue in your sheltered, naive, idealistic little world where everyone wants "freedom" and "democracy". Enslavement? Do you know all the benifits that the member republics got out of being a part of the CCCP? Bet not. So shut your mouth before you presume to speak, child.
Why not? Appearantly, you have no plans for bettering my life with this hypernationalism of yours, anyhow. But I'd like to paraphrase a quote from Russia's greatest thinker, Ayn Rand. You can get what you want, but when the prison walls go up because of it, don't wail, and hide behiind the statement "I didn't mean this".

All I am saying is that Vladimir Putin is a destabilizing force in the region, and that he has got to go. Besides, he's hardly any good for Russia anyhow. Yeltsin was better than Putin, and he wasn't the best, either.
How many destablizing forces you want to contend with?

Iran
North Korea
Syria
Lebanon
Russia
China
Saudi Arabia
Iraq (ongoing)
Afghanistan (ongoing)

Better get busy. Heavy agenda ahead!! :eek:

Helloooooo?!?!?!

If anybody is a badboy at the moment (and for the last 15 years) it's been the USA...

1. Why are you discussing invading Russia? Cause they want to sell arms to Syria? Doesn't the USA sell arms to the majority of countries in the world (including Saddam, Pinochet and some other guys in the past)? Oh so its ok for USA to do it, but not for anyone else....
Or is it that Russia are helping Iran develop a nuclear power plant...once again how come it's ok for USA to have nuclear power plants but Iran can't? Some might say cause Iran may make nuclear weapons, once again USA has thousands of those...why can't Iran? Cause they're Muslim? Cause they're an "evil doer" (how many countries has Iran invaded in the last decade and how many has the USA)

Oh yeah and bu the way, Russia is finally getting strong economically, it still has an undefeatable army with a nuclear arsenal that can easily wipe out humanity, and at the moment has more friends in the Western world than USA does...so keep on discussing this arrogant and ultimately stupid topic


Well put :D

I can smell the economy burning. And I don't mean in a good way. Except maybe in the arms industry.

I don't wait. I believe it's a British quote for those of us who were soldiers, originally written in the 1800's-ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die. Obviously, as a foreigner, raised under different circumstances, you have a different idea about what's correct for Russia than I do.

How many destablizing forces you want to contend with?

Iran
North Korea
Syria
Lebanon
Russia
China
Saudi Arabia
Iraq (ongoing)
Afghanistan (ongoing)

Better get busy. Heavy agenda ahead!! :eek:
China and Lebanon, as of yet, are not destabilizing. The rest are easy to deal with, as nearly all of them (except the last two) don't require much military action. Saudi Arabia is showing signs of reform. Syria is dramatically weakened now that its puppet government is chased out of Lebanon. And Iran's mullahs know that they have only about a decade before a major revolt is attempted. But you are free to disagree with me. You love to, even if it is irrational.

I don't wait. I believe it's a British quote for those of us who were soldiers, originally written in the 1800's-ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die. Obviously, as a foreigner, raised under different circumstances, you have a different idea about what's correct for Russia than I do.
Softening your tone toward me? Oh, this is interesting. Let's just talk about our differences, and see who is right. I hate to break it to you, but that is compromise that never works. It just destroys the potential of the people in its path.

No, I just figure being belligerent and overly aggressive would solve nothing and having a civil discussion, while agreeing to disagree in certain points, is the best course of action around here.

Personally, I can't see democracy working in Russia, or certainly not universal franchise anyway. The place is too damned vast and encompasses such a wide breadth of cultures, peoples and views that getting a sensible (or for that matter timely) consensus on anything is nigh-on impossible. It's a nice idea, but when you have about 37 different ethnic groups and heaven only knows how many little political groups in a country nine thousand miles wide, you probably can't make universal franchise work.

Looking at Putin, I say he's the best thing to happen to Russia in twenty years, and that includes Gorbachev. Gorbi might have had good intentions, but what he set in motion was nothing short of disastrous for Russia and was, to some extent, a bad thing for the Union republics. Putin is however such an incredible improvement on Yeltsin it's simply unbelievable. Yeltsin frequently turned up to work pissed as a newt. OK, people take the piss out of Bush's lack of cerebral capacity, but at least he's sober when he spouts his silly, bellicose rhetoric.

No, Putin is a good thing. Heck, the majority of Russians I've spoken to seem to like him and his ways. I like him and his ways - I just wish he'd be more forceful in Chechnya, really - and there's no denying that under his aegis Russia has improved in a number of ways. There's still some way to go, I don't deny, but Putin has definitely made Russia's fortunes improve. If the method he uses to do that is to be authoritarian, I think the majority of the people will forgive him, and ultimately, that is the measure of a national leader.

No, I just figure being belligerent and overly aggressive would solve nothing and having a civil discussion, while agreeing to disagree in certain points, is the best course of action around here.
That can work. I was thinking, however, that it was your way of agreeing with me, that Putin will bring Russia back to the 1970s, and destabilize the world in the process.

That can work. I was thinking, however, that it was your way of agreeing with me, that Putin will bring Russia back to the 1970s, and destabilize the world in the process.

I hate to say it but the world was a damned sight more stable in the '70s than it is now. Heck, at least the USSR wouldn't actually lob its NBC arsenal at anyone. Can't say the same of crazy arab nutters. Equally, America's supply of Christian Fundamentalist Right-wingers hasn't anything to do now the USSR's gone.

I hate to say it but the world was a damned sight more stable in the '70s than it is now. Heck, at least the USSR wouldn't actually lob its NBC arsenal at anyone. Can't say the same of crazy arab nutters. Equally, America's supply of Christian Fundamentalist Right-wingers hasn't anything to do now the USSR's gone.
That some instability has followed is somewhat expected. But it is dramatically decreased since 2000. Civil wars in Africa are ending because they are no longer proxy wars between the two superpowers. Most importantly, most of Eastern Europe has been restabilized. The Middle East may be more unstable, but that is only indirectly related to the Soviet Union's collapse.
Plus, millions of people in Europe and Asia are living better, freerer lives. Even in Russia, while they may not have their coveted stability, at least they have more control over their lives.

I put it to you: what's the worth of being able to control your life, if all it means is you choose how to go without pay?

Regarding the stability question: yes, civil wars in Africa are ending (now they prefer to fight whole nations instead) although I should hasten to point out that it's by no means particularly good even now). If the middle east is stable, evidently Bush and co. are lying to us again and Iran's not a threat, right?

I put it to you: what's the worth of being able to control your life, if all it means is you choose how to go without pay?
Simple: emmigrate. That wasn't an option in the Soviet days, which truely made that country a prison.
Edit: I didn't say the Middle East was stable. They are a great destabilizing force. However, it is only partially related to the USSR's fall, mostly because Egypt, Iraq and Syria lost a big ally, and Israel lost an antagonist.

I think you would be surprised by how much control people had over their personal life in the CCCP. As long as they weren't enemies of the state (a category that reduced drastically following Stalin's death, until you basically had to commit treason to be an enemy of the state), you would be ok. As the son of a military officer, growing up in the military, it was actually harder than for most civilians. It sounds surprising, because everyone thinks of the Soviet Union as a large, militaristic state, but not really. As for Eastern Europe, much of it is in economic shambles, especially Romania. Bulgaria is an iffy proposition, Ukraine and Belarus are in the crapper, former Yugoslavia broke up and then Serbia caught the short end of the stick, unfortunately.

You're telling me that your national policy for Russia would be "we're not in a great position, the system doesn't work; if you don't like it, emmigrate"? Do realise that Russia lost 800,000 inhabitants last year? Maybe, just maybe, it'd be a good idea to temporarily ignore all our liberal western malarkey about the importance of individual rights and concentrate on getting the country to work?

I think you would be surprised by how much control people had over their personal life in the CCCP. As long as they weren't enemies of the state (a category that reduced drastically following Stalin's death, until you basically had to commit treason to be an enemy of the state), you would be ok. As the son of a military officer, growing up in the military, it was actually harder than for most civilians. It sounds surprising, because everyone thinks of the Soviet Union as a large, militaristic state, but not really. As for Eastern Europe, much of it is in economic shambles, especially Romania. Bulgaria is an iffy proposition, Ukraine and Belarus are in the crapper, former Yugoslavia broke up and then Serbia caught the short end of the stick, unfortunately.
But Hungary, Poland, and the former Czechloslovakia are excelling.
Anyhow, there was definitly more control after Stalin, but not to a level that would make a society excel. The first toasters did not come out until 1981, even though they were elsewhere for decades. Housing was mandated, and nearly all apartments were the same. And of course, there was very little economic freedom. There were no such things as bonuses, credit, loans, or even pay based on merit.

You're telling me that your national policy for Russia would be "we're not in a great position, the system doesn't work; if you don't like it, emmigrate"? Do realise that Russia lost 800,000 inhabitants last year? Maybe, just maybe, it'd be a good idea to temporarily ignore all our liberal western malarkey about the importance of individual rights and concentrate on getting the country to work?
Well don't forget, shock therapy was starting to yeild results the first few years Putin was in office. However, starting a couple of years ago, he ruined it. Russia's economy is growing, but it won't last long. He has scared away foreign investment, and frightens people from owning a business and having an opinion, too.

did any watch my vid it explains everything! here (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html) 56k warning

These upstart little states should be handled, and rapidly.

Would you care to elaborate?

did any watch my vid it explains everything! here (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html) 56k warning


very probable

Would you care to elaborate?


Ok. I call it Operation Red Fury. 76th Pskov Guards Paratroops are dropped into Vilnius, seize control of the capital while Spetsnaz commandos raid the government and eliminate it, while a seperate Spetsnaz strike force hits the airport in Vilnius, eliminates the guards there and opens the airports to aircraft landings to deliver a Motor Rifle Regiment. By morning, Vilnius is under our control. Then support units can be brought in. Rinse and repeat with Latvia and Estonia.

Ok. I call it Operation Red Fury. 76th Pskov Guards Paratroops are dropped into Vilnius, seize control of the capital while Spetsnaz commandos raid the government and eliminate it, while a seperate Spetsnaz strike force hits the airport in Vilnius, eliminates the guards there and opens the airports to aircraft landings to deliver a Motor Rifle Regiment. By morning, Vilnius is under our control. Then support units can be brought in. Rinse and repeat with Latvia and Estonia.

why stop there? why not 'rinse and repeat' with Finland and Afghanistan while you're at it? :p

why stop there? why not 'rinse and repeat' with Finland and Afghanistan while you're at it? :p


Finland because it wouldn't be fair to pound on those Scandinavian wussies some more, and the US has got dibs on Afghanistan.

Finland because it wouldn't be fair to pound on those Scandinavian wussies some more, and the US has got dibs on Afghanistan.

Right, so it is all about finding someone you can handle and pound on those. Would it be fair to assume that you are the school bully? Or maybe a republican?

Who said that there was no reason for the u.s. to invade canada; no oil?

Right, so it is all about finding someone you can handle and pound on those. Would it be fair to assume that you are the school bully? Or maybe a republican?

Who said that there was no reason for the u.s. to invade canada; no oil?


No, I was never a bully. I'm a shy guy. And I have nothing to do with the Republican Party, not being a US citizen at all. The party I'm closest associated with is the KPRF.

And the Americans deal in bio and chem weapons, what is the point?

And the Americans deal in bio and chem weapons, what is the point?
You forgot to add that the US is the world's number one supplier of conventional arms. :eek: