PDA

View Full Version : To Obama, from Russia with Love



ace00
6th November 2008, 07:39
President Dmitri Medvedev orders missiles deployed in Europe as world hails Obama

President Medvedev ordered missiles to be stationed up against Nato’s borders yesterday to counter American plans to build a missile defence shield.

Speaking within hours of Barack Obama’s election, Mr Medvedev announced that Russia would base Iskander missiles in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad – the former German city – next to the border with Poland.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5090077.ece


Got to love those Russkies.

Armchair generals, fake / real Russians, end of days true believers - Comments?

Paddy
6th November 2008, 07:58
The agreements under Regan and Gorbachev in the Glasnost and Perestroika years was that the Berlin wall will be allowed to fall, the Russian bases would be dismantled and their troupes withdrawn to the Russian border. These actions were in exchange for assurances that NATA would not expand into countries that were under the former influence of the Soviet Union. As you well know the USA to not keep to their side of the agreement and has expanded even further under George Bush. The Russian missiles are being based in Russian and not another country.. The US radar is being placed in Poland in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes. The ignorance of some of the people on this board is amazing and I do wonder how they were educated.

DodgyAgent
6th November 2008, 08:24
The agreements under Regan and Gorbachev in the Glasnost and Perestroika years was that the Berlin wall will be allowed to fall, the Russian bases would be dismantled and their troupes withdrawn to the Russian border. These actions were in exchange for assurances that NATA would not expand into countries that were under the former influence of the Soviet Union. As you well know the USA to not keep to their side of the agreement and has expanded even further under George Bush. The Russian missiles are being based in Russian and not another country.. The US radar is being placed in Poland in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes. The ignorance of some of the people on this board is amazing and I do wonder how they were educated.

You lot like your rules dont you? You cannot think in "grey terms at all. The world has changed, do you relally expect that agreements made 30 years ago will be made to stay in place to satisfy people like you? Dynamics change, threats change and people change so tactics change. Countries like Poland want to join the EU but also want NATO security as they are stepping away from Russia. This board is full of cowardly "little Russia" lovers.

face it Russia is run by evil egomaniacs, face up to it rather than look for appeasement by criticising our own people and our own democracies.

NotAllThere
6th November 2008, 08:26
If Russia joined Nato, problem would be solved.

Paddy
6th November 2008, 09:18
You lot like your rules dont you? You cannot think in "grey terms at all. The world has changed, do you relally expect that agreements made 30 years ago will be made to stay in place to satisfy people like you? Dynamics change, threats change and people change so tactics change. Countries like Poland want to join the EU but also want NATO security as they are stepping away from Russia. This board is full of cowardly "little Russia" lovers.

face it Russia is run by evil egomaniacs, face up to it rather than look for appeasement by criticising our own people and our own democracies.


You don’t let facts get in the way of your argument DA? The majority of people in Poland and the Czech Republic (75%) do not want NATO or the US missile shield. Democracy DA?

If agreements don’t matter than it’s the same as Hitler’s words. “Would you go to war over a piece of paper?”

tay
6th November 2008, 10:10
You don’t let facts get in the way of your argument DA? The majority of people in Poland and the Czech Republic (75%) do not want NATO or the US missile shield. Democracy DA?

If agreements don’t matter than it’s the same as Hitler’s words. “Would you go to war over a piece of paper?”

You arent making much sense... the majority in the UK dont want Brown as PM... he is still there.
The Poles will get a chance to vote out a govt if they feel strongly enough... in fact they already did, and they didnt take it. They have already made thier choice.

M_B
6th November 2008, 10:34
The Russians are just adapting to the new strategic threat - it was inevitable.

DodgyAgent
6th November 2008, 11:13
You don’t let facts get in the way of your argument DA? The majority of people in Poland and the Czech Republic (75%) do not want NATO or the US missile shield. Democracy DA?

If agreements don’t matter than it’s the same as Hitler’s words. “Would you go to war over a piece of paper?”

Where do you get these figures from?

Nicky G
6th November 2008, 12:12
The Russians are preparing for the destruction of the United States. Perestroika was a deception to disarm the West and take away Western unity in the face of a common enemy. They are not concerned by this pathetic defence system. Moving missiles into Kaliningrad is a precursor to war and they’re doing it under the pretence of being the victim, notably announcing such an important move when the eyes of the world are elsewhere (typically devious Mongol Communists).

Unfortunately, brain dead Little Timmy's everywhere believe the Russian lies and agitprop. To them a nation of hockey mums and narcissists is the greatest threat to world peace (Amweican empewialesm / prior knowledge / unlimited wars / goo goo).

Paddy
6th November 2008, 12:42
Where do you get these figures from?

The figures are taken from opinion polls and published in the Polish and Czech media. I was in Prague in August and there were mass protests regarding the US radar shield and NATO, not that the BBC would report that. The

AlfredJPruffock
6th November 2008, 12:43
The Russians are preparing for the destruction of the United States. Perestroika was a deception to disarm the West and take away Western unity in the face of a common enemy. They are not concerned by this pathetic defence system. Moving missiles into Kaliningrad is a precursor to war and they’re doing it under the pretence of being the victim, notably announcing such an important move when the eyes of the world are elsewhere (typically devious Mongol Communists).

Unfortunately, brain dead Little Timmy's everywhere believe the Russian lies and agitprop. To them a nation of hockey mums and narcissists is the greatest threat to world peace (Amweican empewialesm / prior knowledge / unlimited wars / goo goo).


Jings !!!

Help ma Boab !!!!

AtW
6th November 2008, 12:49
If Russia joined Nato, problem would be solved.

The generals don't want to because this would mean they will lose big enemy and thus huge financing. USSR was more or less build around the external threat which justified 80% of GDP spent on armaments one way or another - civil production like radios were made as last effort on military plants making radios for the forces etc.

AtW
6th November 2008, 12:56
The agreements under Regan and Gorbachev in the Glasnost and Perestroika years was that the Berlin wall will be allowed to fall, the Russian bases would be dismantled and their troupes withdrawn to the Russian border.

USSR lost the war - it should have been grateful it was all peaceful and troops returned home with weapons and no bombs were dropped. Heck, the leaders of USSR should have been extatic at the fact they did not go to Nurnberg to answer for their crimes against humanity - Soviet regime killed more people than nazi germany and they got away with it!

Frankly, given how Russia was supporting Iran and other backwards states to encourage them opposing the West, I think such behavior was totally wrong and anti-missile defence is appearing now directly as the result of Russian support to Iran and others to help them make missiles and now effectively nuclear weapons.

DodgyAgent
6th November 2008, 13:08
USSR lost the war - it should have been grateful it was all peaceful and troops returned home with weapons and no bombs were dropped. Heck, the leaders of USSR should have been extatic at the fact they did not go to Nurnberg to answer for their crimes against humanity - Soviet regime killed more people than nazi germany and they got away with it!

Frankly, given how Russia was supporting Iran and other backwards states to encourage them opposing the West, I think such behavior was totally wrong and anti-missile defence is appearing now directly as the result of Russian support to Iran and others to help them make missiles and now effectively nuclear weapons.

:yay:

AtW this is probably the one topic that you have any real knowledge of

AtW
6th November 2008, 13:22
:yay:

AtW this is probably the one topic that you have any real knowledge of

Here is one interesting statistic - Russian army right now has got 1100 generals (!), roughly there are maybe 700 soldiers per general, can you fking believe that! I think in USA number of generals is around 100 max.

EternalOptimist
6th November 2008, 13:26
Here is one interesting statistic - Russian army right now has got 1100 generals (!), roughly there are maybe 700 soldiers per general, can you fking believe that! I think in USA number of generals is around 100 max.

Russian units are not the same as western ones, they operate a different structure, ranks are not equivilent



:rolleyes:

ace00
6th November 2008, 13:36
So what is the aim, the end game? I assume it is to exhibit that Russia does not agree to further eastward NATO expansion?

One kind of related question that has bugged me - why did the Soviet Union give all that lovely resource rich territory away in the first place, especially Kazakstan? I mean it's the size of Western Europe! Was Yeltsin just a "happy drunk" !?

AtW
6th November 2008, 13:37
Russian units are not the same as western ones, they operate a different structure, ranks are not equivilent
:rolleyes:

Generals are not supposed to command platoons or battalions - there are lots of colonels, majors, captains - so if generals have got 700 men under their command on average it means pretty high levels officers like captain would have 50-100. There are over 150000 officers in Russian military right now with maybe 800000 soldiers at best. Situation is so bad that even they decided to cut down on officer stuff, and reduce generals count from 1100 to ... 900 :laugh

EternalOptimist
6th November 2008, 13:39
So what is the aim, the end game? I assume it is to exhibit that Russia does not agree to further eastward NATO expansion?

One kind of related question that has bugged me - why did the Soviet Union give all that lovely resource rich territory away in the first place, especially Kazakstan? I mean it's the size of Western Europe! Was Yeltsin just a "happy drunk" !?

possibly setting up a bargaining chip, the timing due to a change at the top in the USA


Why did they give up their empire ? I dont know for sure, but isn't that what we did over the last 100 years or so ?



:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
6th November 2008, 13:43
Generals are not supposed to command platoons or battalions - there are lots of colonels, majors, captains - so if generals have got 700 men under their command on average it means pretty high levels officers like captain would have 50-100. There are over 150000 officers in Russian military right now with maybe 800000 soldiers at best. Situation is so bad that even they decided to cut down on officer stuff, and reduce generals count from 1100 to ... 900 :laugh

well I am not sure if what you say about a general commanding a btn is true or not. What I do know is that there are extra levels of general in the Russian army, and their units are typically much smaller than in the west. Their staff officers are also generals, whereas in the west they can be any old rank.
If all British staff officers were made into generals I am sure I would be laughing along with you :D



:rolleyes: