PDA

View Full Version : Russian Warships Enter Syrian Waters To Prevent NATO Attack



European blood
11-19-2011, 09:22 PM
Moscow in aggressive move to stop another American “humanitarian intervention”.

Russian warships have entered Syrian territorial waters in an aggressive move designed to prevent any NATO-led attack on the country under the guise of a “humanitarian intervention”.

“Russian warships are due to arrive at Syrian territorial waters, a Syrian news agency said on Thursday, indicating that the move represented a clear message to the West that Moscow would resist any foreign intervention in the country’s civil unrest,” reports Haaretz.

Russia has stepped up efforts to defend Syria in recent days, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov keen to frame the violence in the country as a civil war in defiance of claims by western powers that President Bashar al-Assad has overseen a bloody crackdown on innocent protesters.

As we saw prior to the attack on Libya, which was also framed as a “humanitarian intervention,” NATO powers are keen to demonize Assad’s government by characterizing attacks by his forces as atrocities while largely ignoring similar attacks by opposition forces, such as this week’s raid on a Syrian air force intelligence complex that killed or wounded 20 security police.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner rejects Russia’s claim that Syria is in a civil war, stating, “We believe it’s very much the Assad regime carrying out a campaign of violence, intimidation, and repression against innocent protesters.”

Of course, we heard similar rhetoric even as NATO-backed Al-Qaeda rebels were commandeering fighter jets and firing rocket-propelled grenades in Libya, actions also undertaken by “innocent protesters,” we were told at the time.

As we have previously reported, despite overwhelming speculation that Iran will be the next target of a military assault, Syria is the likeliest target for the next salvo of NATO-backed regime change.

US President Barack Obama got the ball rolling back in August when he called on President al-Assad to step down. The UN has already withdrawn all non-essential staff from the country.

Without Russia’s help, Syria would be largely defenseless against a NATO attack. “I don’t see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems … [But] it would be more risky than Libya. It would be a heavy military operation,” former French air force chief Jean Rannou commented.

Given that the western press has proven adept at manufacturing lies to justify military interventions, whether the actions of Assad’s regime represent genuine atrocities or legitimate conduct in the midst of a civil war remains unclear. Some have claimed the abuses are being embellished, while both former CIA agent Robert Baer and ex-MI6 officer Alastair Crooke point out that the Syrian people definitely want change, but not in the form of a NATO “humanitarian” assault.

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/russian-warships-enter-syrian-waters-to-prevent-nato-attack/

HungAryan
11-19-2011, 09:32 PM
Good job Russia :thumbs up

Saruman
11-19-2011, 09:44 PM
Carrier killers need some action.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16975940.jpg

:D
http://brogsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/63.jpg

http://justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/putin_ahmadinejad.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9sfEJtO1o0M/TZ-EiWJ1weI/AAAAAAAAAGs/gQ9ejmXs82U/s1600/david_Duke.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20070816/001320d12393082dcabc0d.jpg

Peace.:D
http://alonealone.com/ahmadinejad-peace.jpg

Nglund
11-19-2011, 10:03 PM
Meh, as if they were able to confront the US Navy :rofl:

Saruman
11-19-2011, 10:13 PM
Meh, as if they were able to confront the US Navy :rofl:

Oscars + Kirov = big hazard for US Carrier Battlegroup.:D It cannot survive 50-70 Granits, even now in 2011.

Money Shot
11-19-2011, 10:16 PM
Yeah.


They got the U.S. Navy scared now. :rolleyes2:


***The above comment is sarcasm, for the sarcasm impaired***

Albion
11-19-2011, 10:18 PM
Good plan to make the world notice you Russia, good job. We'd almost forgotten about you... :thumb001: :rolleyes:

I sense an attention whore.

Money Shot
11-19-2011, 10:19 PM
Oscars + Kirov = big hazard for US Carrier Battlegroup.:D It cannot survive 50-70 Granits, even now in 2011.




Uh no.



Oscars and Kirov = target practice.



I doubt the russian vessels will even leave port once they get there, if they can even make the voyage.

Mordid
11-19-2011, 10:22 PM
It's good old Cold War days all over again.. xD

Money Shot
11-19-2011, 10:22 PM
Good job Russia :thumbs up



So, where your parents saying the same thing when they were living under the bootheel of russian oppression?



If stupidity were painful, you would be in a coma right now.

Osweo
11-19-2011, 10:25 PM
Mere presence of a sizeable ship is enough to force a superpower to keep its nose out, for fear of incidents with unforeseen consequences that take matters beyond the purely local scale. Who cares about relative firepower and so on?

HungAryan
11-19-2011, 10:27 PM
So, where your parents saying the same thing when they were living under the bootheel of russian oppression?



If stupidity were painful, you would be in a coma right now.

I'd rather live under Russian oppression than Judeo-American rule.
Why?
Because the Russians make their point clear.
Under their rule, the people rebel.
However, the Judeo-Americans make everything secrets. They make the people believe that they do not oppress us, while in fact they do.
Secrecy is the most powerful weapon in the world.

Money Shot
11-19-2011, 10:30 PM
I'd rather live under Russian oppression than Judeo-American rule.
Why?
Because the Russians make their point clear.
Under their rule, the people rebel.
However, the Judeo-Americans make everything secrets. They make the people believe that they do not oppress us, while in fact they do.
Secrecy is the most powerful weapon in the world.




And to think, you're not in a coma right now.


Fucking amazing.:confused:

BeerBaron
11-19-2011, 10:41 PM
LOL @ "russian warship"

im impressed they were able to seal all the rust though

just let the US Navy blast the ruskies to bits

but in all seriousness the US is very worried:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

they are worried guys, how absurd, no one stands a chance against the US Navy, you little conspiratorial jewspricists you

Siberyak
11-19-2011, 10:56 PM
Can anyone confirm this?

Troll's Puzzle
11-19-2011, 11:12 PM
What is wrong with all the Americans on here? :(

I understand Stirpes' policy more and more :shrug:

Saruman
11-19-2011, 11:12 PM
Uh no.


Oscars and Kirov = target practice.

I doubt the russian vessels will even leave port once they get there, if they can even make the voyage.

Yes, Kirovs are so useless that actually all (1 atm + 3 more) of them are returning to service in this decade. The role of missile cruisers in this era is actually bigger. Some were arguing that even battleships could make a solid comeback with missiles today. Even old Iowas could be more useful today than they were 30 years ago. US Navy isn't in an upward spiral, Zumwalts basically cancelled bar few, Tico's replacement is just a Burke variant so no next generation CG-X cruisers, and you're going to have troubles with Chinese at the moment having one Carrier nearly operational, 2 are being built and 2 more at least are starting or will start soon. Notwithstanding their new Anti-Ship GPS guided ballistic Missile, which caused panic in US ranks.

Generally accepted failure of F-35, and general trends of simple lack of innovation are a consequence of increasing American Thirdworldisation due to hordes of non-Europeans being poured in by Parasitic Plutocrats who know that the only way of controlling white Americans is to pour in the hordes of 3rd world, however the problem remains for them- if they remove the most valuable element who will maintain the supremacy of this future America? Will Latinos, Blacks be able to fulfill the task, of course not, and so others like China will move on. But real America can still rise maybe, as actually it was the Great Britain who first fell ill of this "disease" and Americans were fighting it throughout the whole 19th century!

It does not matter for geopolitical situation in the middle east if Assad is removed from power or not, because even if Syria and eventually Iran are put out it's just going to strengthen new nemesis, Erdogan's neo-Ottoman Turkey that will pose a big threat to Israel. Actually Turkey wants Assad gone so they can spread their influence and have a border with Israel effectively, so they can strike if the need arises.:D So it doesn't matter, throughout the middle east it is becoming increasingly difficult for Plutocrats to maintain order, and eventually hopefully in Europe as well, because US and UK are their centers, elsewhere their tools are more limited.

Money Shot
11-20-2011, 12:10 AM
Yes, Kirovs are so useless that actually all (1 atm + 3 more) of them are returning to service in this decade. The role of missile cruisers in this era is actually bigger. Some were arguing that even battleships could make a solid comeback with missiles today. Even old Iowas could be more useful today than they were 30 years ago. US Navy isn't in an upward spiral, Zumwalts basically cancelled bar few, Tico's replacement is just a Burke variant so no next generation CG-X cruisers, and you're going to have troubles with Chinese at the moment having one Carrier nearly operational, 2 are being built and 2 more at least are starting or will start soon. Notwithstanding their new Anti-Ship GPS guided ballistic Missile, which caused panic in US ranks.

Generally accepted failure of F-35, and general trends of simple lack of innovation are a consequence of increasing American Thirdworldisation due to hordes of non-Europeans being poured in by Parasitic Plutocrats who know that the only way of controlling white Americans is to pour in the hordes of 3rd world, however the problem remains for them- if they remove the most valuable element who will maintain the supremacy of this future America? Will Latinos, Blacks be able to fulfill the task, of course not, and so others like China will move on. But real America can still rise maybe, as actually it was the Great Britain who first fell ill of this "disease" and Americans were fighting it throughout the whole 19th century!

It does not matter for geopolitical situation in the middle east if Assad is removed from power or not, because even if Syria and eventually Iran are put out it's just going to strengthen new nemesis, Erdogan's neo-Ottoman Turkey that will pose a big threat to Israel. Actually Turkey wants Assad gone so they can spread their influence and have a border with Israel effectively, so they can strike if the need arises.:D So it doesn't matter, throughout the middle east it is becoming increasingly difficult for Plutocrats to maintain order, and eventually hopefully in Europe as well, because US and UK are their centers, elsewhere their tools are more limited.





Dude.....:eek:



That shit is nothing but gibberish. :rolleyes2:

Turkey
11-20-2011, 12:22 AM
I'd rather live under Russian oppression than Judeo-American rule.
Why?
Because the Russians make their point clear.
Under their rule, the people rebel.
However, the Judeo-Americans make everything secrets. They make the people believe that they do not oppress us, while in fact they do.
Secrecy is the most powerful weapon in the world.

All they have to do is research who runs every major media company, who lobbies most for immigration and who funds the presidential candidate who wins(and who owns their national treasury FFS).

I just wonder why the "Americans" on this site can't or won't research these few facts.

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 12:56 AM
I suppose one can view any story from the EU Times with some suspicion, but if this is happening it represents just another unnecessary military escalation by the Russians.

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 01:00 AM
What is wrong with all the Americans on here? :(

I understand Stirpes' policy more and more :shrug:

Let's translate this post:

Americans are supposed to blame America for all the world's problems and hail Mad Vlad as Glorious Imperator, or be banned.

Eldritch
11-20-2011, 02:16 AM
What is wrong with all the Americans on here? :(

I understand Stirpes' policy more and more :shrug:

I'd like to know that too, but in all fairness it does not extend to all the Americans on the forum. There's no shortage of people with ... problems. :shrug:

zack
11-20-2011, 05:06 AM
I think many of my fellow americans have what is known as hubris....we are america! No one can hurt us! We are invincible! We are the west! We are the most powerful military ever!!!!!! :coffee:

It will be our downfall.

I've seen it before on many sites and its not just with nation countries,its with non-whites as well.

We white...we are the master race!The mud peoples should bow down before us in fear and acknowledge our greatness and superiority! We can never lose to the non-whites(russo-japanese war *cough*/ various mud stompings europe recieved from the sand nigger turks*cough*)

Hubris and overestimating ourselves will be our downfall,its fine to be patriotic and to love your race.

But taken to absurd levels it can be dangerous :puke

Electronic God-Man
11-20-2011, 05:13 AM
Very interesting, if true.

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 05:16 AM
I think many of my fellow americans have what is known as hubris....we are america! No one can hurt us! We are invincible! We are the west! We are the most powerful military ever!!!!!! :coffee:

It will be our downfall.

I've seen it before on many sites and its not just with nation countries,its with non-whites as well.

We white...we are the master race!The mud peoples should bow down before us in fear and acknowledge our greatness and superiority! We can never lose to the non-whites(russo-japanese war *cough*/ various mud stompings europe recieved from the sand nigger turks*cough*)

Hubris and overestimating ourselves will be our downfall,its fine to be patriotic and to love your race.

But taken to obsurd levels it can be dangerous :puke

Well, I for one acknowledge there are limits to American power while recognizing the reality that America is the strongest power. I certainly view any war with Russia as a disaster.

But that sort of leads to my next point. Why are we turning a thread about Russia provocatively sending in a warship to a region experiencing domestic strife into another blame America fest? The mentality here is mindboggling. :confused:

Black Sun Dimension
11-20-2011, 05:16 AM
http://www.corrupt.org/drupal/files/images/matroyshkasrus.jpg

Good job Russia. :thumb001:

AussieScott
11-20-2011, 05:36 AM
I think many of my fellow americans have what is known as hubris....we are america! No one can hurt us! We are invincible! We are the west! We are the most powerful military ever!!!!!! :coffee:

It will be our downfall.

I've seen it before on many sites and its not just with nation countries,its with non-whites as well.

We white...we are the master race!The mud peoples should bow down before us in fear and acknowledge our greatness and superiority! We can never lose to the non-whites(russo-japanese war *cough*/ various mud stompings europe recieved from the sand nigger turks*cough*)

Hubris and overestimating ourselves will be our downfall,its fine to be patriotic and to love your race.

But taken to obsurd levels it can be dangerous :puke

My Great Grand parents and Grand parents on my Paternal side, when back in Britain, did not think a second world war possible. Little alone the passage of global empire from Britain to the USA.

How shocked do you think they were on the onset of WW2 and then the rise of the USA during that war...

Order out of Chaos is how it works, weaken the borders, let in the illegal immigrants, cause a shit storm, then offer a solution.

Australia's borders are about to be weakened by some free trade agreements as our senate are pushing for the flow of Asian Pacific Labour...Sound familiar...

beaver
11-20-2011, 06:35 AM
I've just read the Russian Internet. What I've understood. Some Russian ships (not many) are moving to the naval station Russia leases in Syria. A routine. The second point - Russia really sells to Syria anti-aircraft complexes but not too serious. There were some negotiations in 2010 about S-300 (I even dont talk about S-400 and "Triumth") but Americans were very displeased and Lawrov (Foreign Minister) said then "the question is closed". So, nothing can prevent NATO to create one more hell territory (to the great pleasure of Israel that will have full support of the whole West in the future - the problem of Israel is becoming the problem for all). The Kremlin is very pro-Western, the elite has to much skin interest in the West. They can only puff up cheeks so to show their importance. Maybe the West will prefer to stop and they will then twitter about their wise politic.

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 08:03 AM
The Kremlin is very pro-Western,

I'll try to keep that in mind the next time Vladimir Putin calls the US a parasite on the global economy, sells fighter jet engine tech to China, and space tech to Venezuela. :rolleyes:

Libertas
11-20-2011, 08:07 AM
The USA is in an economic swamp but not when it comes to warmongering and trying to police the planet for the sake of life, liberty and the "American way".

Nglund
11-20-2011, 08:53 AM
Oscars + Kirov = big hazard for US Carrier Battlegroup.:D It cannot survive 50-70 Granits, even now in 2011.


In 2009, Admiral Popov (Ret.), former commander of the Russian Northern Fleet, said that the Russian Navy will greatly decline in combat capabilities by 2015 if the current rate of new ship construction remains unchanged, due to the retirement of ocean going ships.

All Hail The Almighty Russian Navy! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy)

Saruman
11-20-2011, 09:16 AM
All Hail The Almighty Russian Navy! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy)

Things change, that was in 2009, now it's 2011, and a new modernization package for Russian Navy has been approved. Crucial point is that Russian Navy will, with 4 modernized Kirov missile cruisers, and a fleet of Oscars and soon Yasens, have capability of deterrent against US Carriers. Kuznetsov is being modernized atm. instead of being just Air Protection and ASuW carrier it will have more power projection capabilities than before. Actually, new Kuznetsov will be the first Russian power projection Carrier as the former ones were just designed to support Ballistic missile submarines. Also Borei class is going forward so Russia will maintain solid first strike nuclear capabilities, and new Yasen class will provide what both Oscar and Akula provided. So the submarine fleet will remain in solid state as it is the backbone of Russian sea power, Russia doesn't have the funds atm to maintain large surface fleet, and also that was Soviet doctrine to have surface fleet just to attack carriers and protect the SSBN's, it would not be possible to change such doctrine without significant funds. Actually although Russian surface fleet wasn't in best shape after the fall of USSR, it's Submarine backbone always remained potent and that's the point.

So the Russian Navy will continue to meet it's 2 main tasks:
1. Successfully launch Nuclear attack
2. Have capability to sink carriers.

Chinese though are going forward with their Carrier fleet, at least 4-5 carriers before this decade ends.

Nglund
11-20-2011, 10:00 AM
Things change, that was in 2009, now it's 2011, and a new modernization package for Russian Navy has been approved. Crucial point is that Russian Navy will, with 4 modernized Kirov missile cruisers, and a fleet of Oscars and soon Yasens, have capability of deterrent against US Carriers. Kuznetsov is being modernized atm. instead of being just Air Protection and ASuW carrier it will have more power projection capabilities than before. Actually, new Kuznetsov will be the first Russian power projection Carrier as the former ones were just designed to support Ballistic missile submarines. Also Borei class is going forward so Russia will maintain solid first strike nuclear capabilities, and new Yasen class will provide what both Oscar and Akula provided. So the submarine fleet will remain in solid state as it is the backbone of Russian sea power, Russia doesn't have the funds atm to maintain large surface fleet, and also that was Soviet doctrine to have surface fleet just to attack carriers and protect the SSBN's, it would not be possible to change such doctrine without significant funds. Actually although Russian surface fleet wasn't in best shape after the fall of USSR, it's Submarine backbone always remained potent and that's the point.

So the Russian Navy will continue to meet it's 2 main tasks:
1. Successfully launch Nuclear attack
2. Have capability to sink carriers.

Chinese though are going forward with their Carrier fleet, at least 4-5 carriers before this decade ends.

Nothing new here my man, the Soviets already had 'modernised' kirov class decades before the Russian Navy was even created.
Ever wondered why the Soviets lost the Cold War? That's right, their navy couldn't match US naval power. It made the USSR virtually landlocked and poor. Infact, I would argue that Russia is in a tremendous state of weakness. The boundaries of NATO are dangerously close to Moscow (about five hundred miles from the Baltics to Moscow actually). If Russia wages war on the US of A, a good chunk of its territory (including Moscow, Saint Petersburg and perhaps Volgograd) would immediately fall under NATO's hands. What saved Russia was depth, and it's something Russia's currently lacking right now.

China is much more of a threat for both the US and China have shared economic interests.

Turkophagos
11-20-2011, 11:50 AM
If Russia deployed a few fishing boats armed with mg3s machine guns in the Syrian waters instead of warships wouldn't make any difference. It's a symbolic, diplomatic if you prefer, move.

The momment NATO would decide to openly sink a part of the Russian navy, constituted from fishing boats or the latest battleships, should expect the arrival of these babies in their capitals:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/rs-24/pictures/RS-24_multiple_warhead_missile_system_Russian_Army_Ru ssia_002.jpg


So, stop this "my navy is bigger than yours" pissing contest, it's ridicilous.

Osweo
11-20-2011, 11:55 AM
I take it back. I bought me a pair of these;
http://cdn100.iofferphoto.com/img/item/201/412/970/usa-flag-patriot-aviator-country-sunglasses-2eb13.jpg
... and now I am far better able to make informed decisions. They filter out all distractions, and show everyone as either GOODIE or BADDIE. :thumbs:

Yippee Kye-AY, muthafuckas. :usa2:

beaver
11-20-2011, 12:03 PM
Ever wondered why the Soviets lost the Cold War?
The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, jeans, good cars, movies with beautiful life (our soviet comedies are much better)... What else?

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 12:15 PM
Gee, I like where this thread is going. Do I get to post ICBMs heading toward Russian cities too? :rolleyes:

beaver
11-20-2011, 12:25 PM
If Russia wages war on the US of A, a good chunk of its territory (including Moscow, Saint Petersburg and perhaps Volgograd) would immediately fall under NATO's hands. What saved Russia was depth, and it's something Russia's currently lacking right now.
Armageddon for the both sides (fool ass for all participants (полный пиздец) for all participants). Its not such a problem for Russians but Westerners like to be safe and good (and in warm)

beaver
11-20-2011, 12:33 PM
I like where this thread is going.
Joe, yes, whites are getting agressive to each other. Your problem is that the game is becoming too obvious for all :)

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 12:38 PM
Joe, yes, whites are getting agressive to each other. Your problem is that the game is becoming too obvious for all :)

No, my problem is pretty much one Greek idiot posting a photo of Russian ICBMs heading toward my country, and a couple of jokers thanking the post.

beaver
11-20-2011, 12:53 PM
No, my problem is pretty much one Greek idiot posting a photo of Russian ICBMs heading toward my country, and a couple of jokers thanking the post.
Sorry in this case (honestly) I could lose your point. I'm much more interested in "face threads" :(

Saruman
11-20-2011, 12:58 PM
You don't like R-39 ICBM's Joe? Maybe you'd prefer this. :D

H9AMtUeyDP0

WwlNPhn64TA

Nglund
11-20-2011, 01:01 PM
No, my problem is pretty much one Greek idiot posting a photo of Russian ICBMs heading toward my country, and a couple of jokers thanking the post.

That's not all :D


Successfully launch Nuclear attack


http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/rs-24/pictures/RS-24_multiple_warhead_missile_system_Russian_Army_Ru ssia_002.jpg


Armageddon for the both sides.



http://www.happypenguin.org/images/defcon1.jpg

It's all over :sad:

Osweo
11-20-2011, 01:14 PM
http://www.gonemovie.biz/WWW/Drama/Drama/StrangeloveRipper1.jpg




http://wallofpaul.com/files/Strangelove%20(2,%20shrunk).jpg


Me, surrounded by barmy bastards;
http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/filmnotes/images3/strangelove10.jpg

beaver
11-20-2011, 01:24 PM
Me, surrounded by barmy bastards;
there is only one potential barmy bastard arround you and both are about 1910 - 20 YOB :)

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 01:45 PM
That's not all :D









http://www.happypenguin.org/images/defcon1.jpg

It's all over :sad:

Yeah, they'd be heading toward Athens too, even by his own estimate apparently, not to mention London.. :lightbul:

These sorts of threads bring out the stupid like nothing else. Excuse me while I take a shower...

Saruman
11-20-2011, 02:23 PM
Nothing new here my man, the Soviets already had 'modernised' kirov class decades before the Russian Navy was even created.

I do not understand, there was earlier Kirov class, this "Kirov" or better said Orlan class was first commissioned in 1980 carrying 20 long range supersonic missiles to deal with US carriers primarily. And having very strong Anti-air defenses. They are currently being worked on, the 2nd ship should be again operational in a year or so, and the remaining 2 are planned to be brought back with upgraded systems and weaponry.




Ever wondered why the Soviets lost the Cold War? That's right, their navy couldn't match US naval power. It made the USSR virtually landlocked and poor.

That's an oversimplification, Russian Navy in WW2 was weak in comparison to US Navy, Japanese or just about any other major power. At the end of war US had a fleet of Essex carriers which would serve way after the war, so US had an enormous lead. Russians managed to be on par with developments in submarine warfare, so their starting point in that branch wasn't so far back like it was in Carriers. Because it offered new capabilities in terms of delivering nuclear 1st strike it was a good branch to invest in, Russians were throughout the war on par with US n that segment and they showed more technological innovation. Their first carriers were just designed to protect the ICBM submarines, and assist missile cruisers, submarines, and land based bombers who would attack US Carriers.




Infact, I would argue that Russia is in a tremendous state of weakness. The boundaries of NATO are dangerously close to Moscow (about five hundred miles from the Baltics to Moscow actually).

Hardly, in fact as I've said with re-designation of Kuznetsov carrier to a power projection carrier they have their first such ship. Kuznetsov was only anti-sub and air defense weapon, because it carried a small squadron of large fighters and space it's anti-ship missiles occupied prevented larger wing. Plus those Su-33 fighters because of their size would have had troubles taking-off with anti-ship missiles like Moskit, so now as missiles are removed it's going to be a power projection carrier with new fighters, plus Russia has purchased from France licence for 2 (and possibly 2 more) Mistral amphibious assault ships, giving their Navy power projection capabilities they never had before.

Peasant
11-20-2011, 02:32 PM
Deal with it, Americans!
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01804/putin_1804437b.jpg

LMAO ROFL LOL THEWEST


Now for a bit of music from my favourite Assad allies.

N2B_Enzq_Q4

beaver
11-20-2011, 02:52 PM
plus Russia has purchased from France licence for 2 (and possibly 2 more) Mistral
all Russian (from what I read) experts fuck these Mistrals - absolutely of no use for any Russian tasks. Carriers of helicopters that could be good for landing somewhere in Africa or Middle Asia. WTH this troughs for us???? (its not my opinion). Medvedev and Sarcory arranged this in some sauna. I read a discussion about Kurils + Mistral (before the earthquake - Japaneses began to behave too impudent then) between knowing people - absolutely such verdict. This is like Medvedev's iPod or new beads for some New Guinea chief :)

Olika
11-20-2011, 02:59 PM
Everything is properly :thumbs up Russia:wink

Joe McCarthy
11-20-2011, 04:04 PM
Deal with it, Americans!
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01804/putin_1804437b.jpg

LMAO ROFL LOL THEWEST


Now for a bit of music from my favourite Assad allies.

N2B_Enzq_Q4

That pic makes Putin look like a hitman for the mob. Very appropos.

Nglund
11-20-2011, 05:41 PM
That's an oversimplification, Russian Navy in WW2 was weak in comparison to US Navy, Japanese or just about any other major power. At the end of war US had a fleet of Essex carriers which would serve way after the war, so US had an enormous lead.

And you are overcomplicating the issue Saruman, I do not underestimate Russian military power. But the fact is that Russia poses not a global but regional threat to American interests.



Hardly, in fact as I've said with re-designation of Kuznetsov carrier to a power projection carrier they have their first such ship.

Not yet, that's planned for 2012...
Russia has been losing its power progressively since 1991, but is currently attempting to revert the process. We'll probably witness a full reassertion of Russian power within the next decade. And as I wrote above, this will only be a regional crisis: the US of A already has the means to contain Russia. Her boundaries are far more withdrawn than the borders of the Soviet Empire. Russia's military and industrial developments shall eventually be burdened by its hydrocarbon riches as it will be motivated by the spending of these elements I mentionned. This actually might cause the collapse of the country's military in the future.
Both Russia and the US of A cannot afford any military confrontation at the moment...especially not Russia. It certainly has an effective fleet, but it's too early to mention anything able to pose a challenge to the United States in the region. Russia might pull out several stunts and maneuvers but that's about it.

Osweo
11-20-2011, 07:59 PM
We'll probably witness a full reassertion of Russian power within the next decade. And as I wrote above, this will only be a regional crisis:
Christ, look how you've fallen for it: you've allowed yourself to be conditioned to see a simple return of something approaching equilibrium, the natural and predictable order of things, as a CRISIS. :tsk:

NO. I refuse to be led by the nose thru a chain of concocted crises to more and more bullshit wars.

If you are happy playing a pathetic 'Little Satan' to the mad bastards in power in America, who give even less of a fuck about our country than they do for the poor schmucks they rule over, then do so. But I don't buy it any more, and my way of thinking is that of the future, as the cracks get wider and wider in the pathetic facade of it all.

Don't you see the horrific aptness of the Strangelove references? :(


maneuvers but that's about it.
Fuck's SAKE! Even your SPELLING has become Yankified!

Manoeuvres!!! :eek:

Óttar
11-20-2011, 08:08 PM
Russians. Provocateurs. :coffee:

Logan
11-20-2011, 08:23 PM
I've not read all the posts, but seems a lot of concern with a small action from the Russians. They do have a small base there.

I think all parties are concerned with a resolution of the current unrest in Syria. I don't forsee an engagement between the bigger players.

arcticwolf
11-20-2011, 08:38 PM
Too many emotional types in this thread. Nothing is going to happen, not a thing. It's just another move in the game of chess, that's all. Move on.

Nglund
11-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Christ, look how you've fallen for it: you've allowed yourself to be conditioned to see a simple return of something approaching equilibrium, the natural and predictable order of things, as a CRISIS. :tsk:

Care to explain me what you mean by 'the natural and predictable order of things'? Of course it's predictable, major conflicts often repeat themselves. Post-Cold War Europe gave Russia enough time to rebuild its strength, such a desire for reasserting power proves that the matter is thus unresolved. And when a single tension does not resolve an underlying geopolitical issue, it is refought until the matter is finally resolved.
The reemergence of Russian power will be perceived as a threat to Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian national security. It will be seen as a crisis by those countries.


Fuck's SAKE! Even your SPELLING has become Yankified!

Manoeuvres!!! :eek:

Fine...but hang on a sec :eek::


NO. I refuse to be led by the nose thru a chain of concocted crises to more and more bullshit wars.

Come over to the dark side Os :laugh:

Turkophagos
11-20-2011, 08:53 PM
LOL, Joe shit his pants over a picture of a single Russian missile! :lol:

Contra Mundum
11-20-2011, 09:20 PM
It's good the Russians are finally standing up for a friend. No one is arguing that Russia could defeat NATO in a naval war, but the US likes to pick on weak opponents. They never attack the strong. Not since WW2 anyway. A Russian presence at least makes the US take a step back. I doubt they would start a war with a major nuclear power like Russia.

I support a strong Russia. The world needs a balance of power. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has been running wild and attacking smaller countries. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would have never happened if the USSR was still in existence. Balance of power is a good thing and I hope Russia gets stronger and forms closer relations with Germany and the rest of Europe.

Contra Mundum
11-20-2011, 09:28 PM
You don't like R-39 ICBM's Joe? Maybe you'd prefer this. :D

H9AMtUeyDP0

WwlNPhn64TA

I wonder how many polar bears and other wildlife were killed by that massive bomb. I never understood the purpose of such tests.

Saruman
11-20-2011, 09:35 PM
http://www.daysarenumbers.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/drago_conference.jpg

39-XvBzFWOQ

Osweo
11-20-2011, 09:41 PM
Russians. Provocateurs. :coffee:
Syria is 375 miles from the Russian border.

Syria is 350 miles from the Russian satellites of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Syria is 215 miles from the former Soviet border.

Syria is about 1,320 miles' sea voyage from the Russian fleet's Crimean port.

Syria has a lot of Chechens, Armenians and other nationals in it that are intimately involved in Russian affairs. Whenever you see a map showing ALL of Russia, you can almost always see Syria on the edge of it, given the scale.

****

Syria is 5,050 miles from the US border.

Syria is 5,700 miles by ship from Cape Cod.

Most American haven't a clue where or what Syria is. It's on the other side of the bloody world.

*****

WHO is the provocateur!? :shrug:



Care to explain me what you mean by 'the natural and predictable order of things'? Of course it's predictable, major conflicts often repeat themselves. Post-Cold War Europe gave Russia enough time to rebuild its strength, such a desire for reasserting power proves that the matter is thus unresolved.
The Joe-McCarthyite 'West' has been rubbing Russia's nose in the shit ALL that time. Russia has not been left alone to recover from the collapse of '91, it has been harrassed and fucked over by America and her lackeys all the while. BRITAIN shelters Chechen terrorists, traitor spies, and billionaire Jewish plunderers of the Russian people's wealth. You LIKE being a lackey, do you? You think it looks good on the international stage?

Acting as though Russia is an aggressive bear, when you've spent the last few decades baiting it and smoking it out of its den is a bit rich.


And when a single tension does not resolve an underlying geopolitical issue, it is refought until the matter is finally resolved.
Senior US figures of the US political establishment have openly listed Putin in the same list as Saddam, Gadaffi, Ahmedinajad and Assad. I saw John McCain do it on the BBC a few days ago. Don't you think that UTTERLY out of order, and a madly IRRESPONSIBLE thing to say?

And then you get all hawkish and gungho, swinging on Rumsfeld and co's coat tails when a Russian ship sails to a Mediterranean port?! :tsk:


The reemergence of Russian power will be perceived as threat to Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian national security. It will be seen as a crisis by those countries.
The Baltic states are Russia's immediate neighbours. Many there support anti-Russian policies, relying on US to help them out when they push things too far. Your support for this state of affairs is insane. Everyone has to learn to get on with their neighbours. It is always 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' in these petty tiffs, so WE should NOT encourage the newly independent states in unwise policies. Remember Germany's mistake in writing Austria-Hungary a blank cheque!?

Come over to the dark side Os :laugh:
You probably saw that spelling whenever you sang from a hymn sheet in school assemblies. :coffee:

Nglund
11-20-2011, 11:43 PM
The Joe-McCarthyite 'West' has been rubbing Russia's nose in the shit ALL that time. Russia has not been left alone to recover from the collapse of '91, it has been harrassed and fucked over by America and her lackeys all the while.

True, Russia had its guts carved out after the collapse of communism. I did not say that the US of A. allowed Russia to rebuild its strength, but that it simply managed and aimed to rebuild its power after the Cold War. Hence the ever increasing importance of that State in the region.
I'm still waiting for your explanation by the way.


You think it looks good on the international stage?

You needn't worry too much about what should and shouldn't look 'good' on the international stage. "Homo homini lupus."


Acting as though Russia is an aggressive bear, when you've spent the last few decades baiting it and smoking it out of its den is a bit rich.

First of all, stop trying to label me with something I have no connection to! Putting your rhetoric aside, if we are going to understand Russia's behaviour and intentions, we have to begin with Russia's fundamental weakness: its borders. The further west into Europe Russia expands, the further enemies have to travel to reach Moscow. That weakness is also coupled with a massive demographic problem, this puts intense pressure on Russia which feels the need to make a move before it is too late.
Russia's intentions are purely regional and defensive in context. It ultimately goes down to two objectives:

. The creation of a system of buffers in order to secure Russian borders.
. Preventing any anti-Russian coalition from forming.

What is seen as defensive by some will be interpreted as an agressive move by the US Globocop. Whose main interest is to prevent any regional power from forming.
Russia will avoid contact at all cost since it is currently in a position of weakness. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread.

If anybody's being hawkish here, it's the Russophilic members you seem to agressively support.

Osweo
11-21-2011, 12:32 AM
True, Russia had its guts carved out after the collapse of communism. I did not say that the US of A. allowed Russia to rebuild its strength, but that it simply managed and aimed to rebuild its power after the Cold War. Hence the ever increasing importance of that State in the region.
HmmMmm.

I'm still waiting for your explanation by the way.
Of what?

You needn't worry too much about what should and shouldn't look 'good' on the international stage. "Homo homini lupus."
Lupi indeed, but we're not playing lupus now. Just jackal to the lupus, and he doesn't even toss us any decent bones worth speaking of anyway. We need friends who will actually value our friendship, ones more in need of us. I do have to explain our country's actions to my international friends at times, and it's fucking embarrassing to tell the truth. I can't see why you're so in favour of playing Little Satan. :shrug:

First of all, stop trying to label me with something I have no connection to!
Hmm? You're parroting official foreign policy. You have connected yourself with the establishment position, not I.


Putting your rhetoric aside, if we are going to understand Russia's behaviour and intentions, we have to begin with Russia's fundamental weakness: its borders. The further west into Europe Russia expands, the further enemies have to travel to reach Moscow.
Sorry, that sounds a bit too Napoleonic to me. Moscow is theoretically accessible in a matter of minutes nowadays, to several tons of bombardment, but even that is rather outdated. The goalposts are moved now. Like all states, it is vulnerable to terrorism. A handful of men or women with backing can wreak havoc now. Britain and America are firm allies of Wahabite Saudi Arabia, indeed.


That weakness is also coupled with a massive demographic problem, this puts intense pressure on Russia which feels the need to make a move before it is too late.
This is over done in the russophobic media and politicians' spin. Russia isn't going anywhere, believe me.


Russia's intentions are purely regional and defensive in context.
Why bother her, then? Why take the side of aggressors and interventionists?


It ultimately goes down to two objectives:

. The creation of a system of buffers in order to secure Russian borders.
VERY Twentieth Century. As for Russia's 'Near Abroad', that nation has far more intimate connections there than you account for with the simplistic and dry 'buffers' notion.


. Preventing any anti-Russian coalition from forming.
It failed in that about 6o years ago. Nato's subsequent behaviour has guaranteed Russia friends in many places, however. :rolleyes:


What is seen as defensive by some will be interpreted as an agressive move by the US Globocop. Whose main interest is to prevent any regional power from forming.
Why are YOU associating with this 'Globocop'? What possible benefit will accrue to the English nation? What to yourself as an individual?

No, our nation is in too bad a state at the moment to go joining in with this sort of jingoist bollocks. America itself is over-reaching, never mind us.


Russia will avoid contact at all cost since it is currently in a position of weakness. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread.
Russia has too much at stake to allow that many names to be ticked off the list that McCain made on telly, seeing as how Putin himself was on it!

AND Russia was successful in Georgia, when the trouble-causers emboldened its leader to stick his neck out too far. Like I said, Syria is NOT worlds away from Abkhazia and Ossetia. Things are far too close to home for Russia to treat this as another Libya.

If anybody's being hawkish here, it's the Russophilic members you seem to agressively support.
I am an unabashed Russophile.
I urge you to rethink the 'hawkishness' of making token gestures to prevent a New World power from sending flotillas all the way into the Mediterranean to oust a Syrian secular-nationalist regime that is of NO threat to the USA.

Contra Mundum
11-21-2011, 02:47 AM
I believe Reagan wanted peace with Russia but once the Neocons gained control of the Republican party, a combative tone developed against Russia after Yeltsin was no longer in power. At the time, I was baffled by this. It didn't make any sense to me. Russia went to great lengths to avoid this. They left eastern Europe, even allowed for the break up of the USSR, but that wasn't enough. The US began to expand NATO rather than move to disband it. Moving closer and closer to the Russian border. An obvious provocation. The American people did not want this. It was a handful of people with enormous influence in Washington. The same who people who hatched the plan to invade Iraq.


Syria is 375 miles from the Russian border.

Syria is 350 miles from the Russian satellites of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Syria is 215 miles from the former Soviet border.

Syria is about 1,320 miles' sea voyage from the Russian fleet's Crimean port.

Syria has a lot of Chechens, Armenians and other nationals in it that are intimately involved in Russian affairs. Whenever you see a map showing ALL of Russia, you can almost always see Syria on the edge of it, given the scale.

****

Syria is 5,050 miles from the US border.

Syria is 5,700 miles by ship from Cape Cod.

Most American haven't a clue where or what Syria is. It's on the other side of the bloody world.

*****

WHO is the provocateur!? :shrug:



The Joe-McCarthyite 'West' has been rubbing Russia's nose in the shit ALL that time. Russia has not been left alone to recover from the collapse of '91, it has been harrassed and fucked over by America and her lackeys all the while. BRITAIN shelters Chechen terrorists, traitor spies, and billionaire Jewish plunderers of the Russian people's wealth. You LIKE being a lackey, do you? You think it looks good on the international stage?

Acting as though Russia is an aggressive bear, when you've spent the last few decades baiting it and smoking it out of its den is a bit rich.

Senior US figures of the US political establishment have openly listed Putin in the same list as Saddam, Gadaffi, Ahmedinajad and Assad. I saw John McCain do it on the BBC a few days ago. Don't you think that UTTERLY out of order, and a madly IRRESPONSIBLE thing to say?

And then you get all hawkish and gungho, swinging on Rumsfeld and co's coat tails when a Russian ship sails to a Mediterranean port?! :tsk:

The Baltic states are Russia's immediate neighbours. Many there support anti-Russian policies, relying on US to help them out when they push things too far. Your support for this state of affairs is insane. Everyone has to learn to get on with their neighbours. It is always 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' in these petty tiffs, so WE should NOT encourage the newly independent states in unwise policies. Remember Germany's mistake in writing Austria-Hungary a blank cheque!?

You probably saw that spelling whenever you sang from a hymn sheet in school assemblies. :coffee:

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 03:12 AM
Irrespective of whether it's been good policy, and I don't really think it has been, the reason NATO has expanded eastward is a very simple one - those countries, having been brutalized by Russia, fear Russia and wanted protection. We gave it to them.

I think US Russia policy has been less than perfect, but surely any whining is anachronistic in the Age of Obama. He ditched the missile shield that paranoid Russian politicians made such a big stink about (though there's another, separate shield in the works that is of a different order which Russia is also griping about now) and made it a priority to better relations. How does Russia respond to this? They sell more weapons to China, that's how.

Russophilia is borne of several factors - ignorance of the horrific demographic realities in Putin's Russia, his hate crime laws, glossing over the fact that he's a crime lord with a corruption record worse than most African leaders, anti-Semitism, and an anybody but America mindset found on the rightist fringe.

beaver
11-21-2011, 05:19 AM
How does Russia respond to this? They sell more weapons to China, that's how.
Its very funny to hear this from a "pro-American". US has made a technological superpover from China - they now make supercomps based on the CHINESE CHIPS!!! Maybe this says nothing to usual members of the TA, but experts in the world were in shock. 5-10 years more and US can be left with little green papers to export (now US is really greatest exporter of new technologies). I had been very optimistic about US up to this annonsement. And you are talking now about several engines for fighters (of the 5 generation though :D). Joe, dont you find that times have changed?

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 05:37 AM
Its very funny to hear this from a "pro-American". US has made a technological superpover from China - they now make supercomps based on the CHINESE CHIPS!!! Maybe this says nothing to usual members of the TA, but experts in the world were in shock. 5-10 years more and US can be left with little green papers to export (now US is really greatest exporter of new technologies). I had been very optimistic about US up to this annonsement. And you are talking now about several engines for fighters (of the 5 generation though :D). Joe, dont you find that times have changed?

Times have indeed changed, though given that Russia, not the US, is the country that borders China, I wouldn't be too anxious to gloat about their rise if I were you.

beaver
11-21-2011, 05:57 AM
Times have indeed changed, though given that Russia, not the US, is the country that borders China, I wouldn't be too anxious to gloat about their rise if I were you.
Please be more consistent, you have charged Russia about these fighter engines as this would be some anti-Western action. I've responded - the most anti-Westerners now are Westerners. And i agree that these engines can be a threat rather for Russia than for US.

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 06:06 AM
Please be more consistent, you have charged Russia about these fighter engines as this would be some anti-Western action. I've responded - the most anti-Westerners now are Westerners. And i agree that these engines can be a threat rather for Russia than for US.

Those fighter engines are intended for use against US forces and if Russia is genuinely interested in having the US as a friend those sales obviously shouldn't be made. The US and EU maintain an arms embargo against China. The West does not sell them weapons, nor is militarily sensitive technology legal to sell to China barring a US waiver. There are many problems with US policy toward China, but we're not the ones selling them arms.

beaver
11-21-2011, 06:21 AM
The West does not sell them weapons, nor is militarily sensitive technology
processor/chip technologies are not military sensitive? Do you really think that "military sensitive" is only something big and noisy? :)

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 08:04 AM
processor/chip technologies are not military sensitive? Do you really think that "military sensitive" is only something big and noisy? :)

Perhaps you'd care to provide a link to what it is you are referring to? The US Arms Control Export Act BANS the transfer of militarily sensitive technology to China. My guess is that what you're referring to either isn't militarily sensitive, or was transferred illegally a/o obtained through espionage. Here's one case of a man being prosecuted under the Act this year:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Guilty-plea-expected-in-China-spy-case-against-1306636.php

Saruman
11-21-2011, 08:37 AM
all Russian (from what I read) experts fuck these Mistrals - absolutely of no use for any Russian tasks. Carriers of helicopters that could be good for landing somewhere in Africa or Middle Asia. WTH this troughs for us???? (its not my opinion). Medvedev and Sarcory arranged this in some sauna. I read a discussion about Kurils + Mistral (before the earthquake - Japaneses began to behave too impudent then) between knowing people - absolutely such verdict. This is like Medvedev's iPod or new beads for some New Guinea chief :)

Mistrals as amphibious assault ships are very flexible platforms. If Russia was developing VTOL fighters they could be used as aircraft carriers! Yak-38 wasn't special but Yak-141 which never entered production was respectable!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Yakovlev_Yak-141_3D_model.jpg/800px-Yakovlev_Yak-141_3D_model.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Yakovlev_Yak-141_Museum_of_technique.jpg/300px-Yakovlev_Yak-141_Museum_of_technique.jpg

Or the proposed Yak-43, Russia made good progress on VTOL front!
http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/Yak-43.jpg

So I would fund VTOL planes, and use Mistrals as a cheaper simpler way of obtaining more Power projection capabilities.

Japanese are doing similar thing to counter the Chinese! Their new 18000 t Hyuga class "helicopter destroyers" are so large that they can effectively carry planes such as F-35 if needed.
http://www.defstrat.com/ArticleImages/197%20m%20long%20Hyuga-11%20helicopters.jpg

Also they are building bigger 24000 t "helicopter destroyers" which will be able to carry more VTOL F-35s!
http://www.iza.ne.jp/images/user/20090902/596650.png

beaver
11-21-2011, 09:31 AM
Perhaps you'd care to provide a link to what it is you are referring to? The US Arms Control Export Act BANS the transfer of militarily sensitive technology to China.

Link to what? To Chinese chips? I dont care what the US government (or someone else) calls "military sensitive" and I dont doubt that US fulfil the obligations (formal), and Russia would fulfil if had. But China got the most advanced electronic techologies just from US and they now will able to make any electronic components of any level and already independently. If they can make chips on the level of Intel they can make absolutely all and on their own. Russian engines is mosquito squeak comparing with this. This was my ponit.

Saruman, many thanks for the materials!

Nglund
11-21-2011, 09:39 AM
Of what?

"The natural and predictable order of things".


We need friends who will actually value our friendship, ones more in need of us. I do have to explain our country's actions to my international friends at times, and it's fucking embarrassing to tell the truth. I can't see why you're so in favour of playing Little Satan. :shrug:

So we should become Russia's lapdog in order to remedy to this? That's rich.
Sure, one might have to prove his friendship to a former rival so as to gain his trust, but Russia has always been perceived as inherently unpredictable by its neighbours.


Sorry, that sounds a bit too Napoleonic to me. Moscow is theoretically accessible in a matter of minutes nowadays, to several tons of bombardment, but even that is rather outdated. The goalposts are moved now. Like all states, it is vulnerable to terrorism. A handful of men or women with backing can wreak havoc now.

Napoleonic or not, you have furthered my point, Russia is incredibly weak. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.


This is over done in the russophobic media and politicians' spin. Russia isn't going anywhere, believe me.

To believe is one thing, to know is another.


Why bother her, then? Why take the side of aggressors and interventionists?

I'm not taking sides, you are.


It failed in that about 6o years ago. Nato's subsequent behaviour has guaranteed Russia friends in many places, however. :rolleyes:

It failed, but the need is still there. 'Friends' such as Iran do not share similar interests apart from opposing the US of A. They could be described as rivals actually. Russia will merely support anybody who confronts the United States.


Why are YOU associating with this 'Globocop'? What possible benefit will accrue to the English nation? What to yourself as an individual?

I am not associating with the USA in any way, I do not recall having posted "Bomb bomb Russia!" have I?
What possible benefit would Russian friendship represent to Britain anyway? More dependence on hydrocarbons? A hostile NATO surrounding us? The USSR's isolation during the Cold War is a testimony to the fact that an alliance with the US is far more preferable to an alliance with Moscow.


No, our nation is in too bad a state at the moment to go joining in with this sort of jingoist bollocks. America itself is over-reaching, never mind us.

Britain shouldn't be involved in any of those rivalries, our stance should be neutral, but that's not going to happen. Shifting our allegiance to Russia will leave us in a much worse state as we would become a potential threat to US interests in America's eyes.


I urge you to rethink the 'hawkishness' of making token gestures to prevent a New World power from sending flotillas all the way into the Mediterranean to oust a Syrian secular-nationalist regime that is of NO threat to the USA.

That 'New World power' has had a fleet in the Mediterranean for decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Sixth_Fleet). Russia's presence in Tartus, as opposed to the Sixth Fleet's patrol of the Mediterranean, is no recent phenomenon.

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 09:49 AM
I don't quite understand this blind Russia partisanship among some nationalists. It has an air of fanaticism about it. Whereas Nazis will say Dolphie good, Wiinie bad, the Russophiles seem to say Russkies good, Americans bad.

It's certainly not the stuff of rational, careful policymaking, that's for sure.

Iliro
11-21-2011, 10:13 AM
If mcCain would have won, (wich i was voting for till he picked that dumb broad palen) putin wouldn't even have the balls to talk bad about america so openly, let alone playing these games.

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 10:29 AM
If mcCain would have won, (wich i was voting for till he picked that dumb broad palen) putin wouldn't even have the balls to talk bad about america so openly, let alone playing these games.

Well, the irony is that the election of Obama hasn't seemed to alter the tune of the Putintards one bit. His more dovish policy is still met with the same Bush era excoration, as if change in administration or policy shifts haven't even occurred.

Saruman
11-21-2011, 10:49 AM
Well, the irony is that the election of Obama hasn't seemed to alter the tune of the Putintards one bit. His more dovish policy is still met with the same Bush era excoration, as if change in administration or policy shifts haven't even occurred.

:D
http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/pclarge/bush_obama.jpg

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Apr/zionist-usa-11_image017.jpg

http://www.colony14.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/obamadummy.jpg

Iliro
11-21-2011, 11:18 AM
Well, the irony is that the election of Obama hasn't seemed to alter the tune of the Putintards one bit. His more dovish policy is still met with the same Bush era excoration, as if change in administration or policy shifts haven't even occurred.Are you surprised?!
The fact that aboma was trying to improve relations with putin was dead giveway of his infant knowledge of this big game.

The Ripper
11-21-2011, 11:24 AM
I don't quite understand this blind Russia partisanship among some nationalists. It has an air of fanaticism about it. Whereas Nazis will say Dolphie good, Wiinie bad, the Russophiles seem to say Russkies good, Americans bad.

It's certainly not the stuff of rational, careful policymaking, that's for sure.

It seems anyone who disagrees with you quickly descends into irrationality and fringe thinking. Strange.

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 11:43 AM
It seems anyone who disagrees with you quickly descends into irrationality and fringe thinking. Strange.

You say that on a thread where people thanked a post featuring a photo of a Russian ICBM heading to NATO capitals. :coffee:

The Ripper
11-21-2011, 11:49 AM
You say that on a thread where people thanked a post featuring a photo of a Russian ICBM heading to NATO capitals. :coffee:

This is The Apricity. What do you expect? Personally, I can't be bothered to dig up all the instances where the Middle-East / Arabs / Muslims / Iran / Russia / X has been threatened with nuclear obliteration.

Besides, the picture most likely was not of a missile heading to a NATO capital, we would've heard about that. If I recall, the Maniot simply imagined a Russian response to hypothetical NATO aggression.

Stars Down To Earth
11-21-2011, 11:53 AM
BRITAIN shelters Chechen terrorists, traitor spies, and billionaire Jewish plunderers of the Russian people's wealth. You LIKE being a lackey, do you?
Of course Britain loves being a lackey to America. It's our purpose on the international stage. The UK is the "Airstrip One" to the United States, from which American air power can depart to rain death upon any nationalist upstarts in Europe or the MENA region.
Hilariously, this degraded, arse-licking, subordinate role of the UK co-exists with a sturdy patriotism – really more a nostalgia for Britain's past imperial greatness. It's pathetic, really.

(As a Scot, I'm not laughing, because Scotland used to have the same position vis-a-vis England in this same empire. :tongue)


If mcCain would have won, (wich i was voting for till he picked that dumb broad palen) putin wouldn't even have the balls to talk bad about america so openly, let alone playing these games.
Who let another Albanian out of his cave?

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 12:00 PM
This is The Apricity. What do you expect? Personally, I can't be bothered to dig up all the instances where the Middle-East / Arabs / Muslims / Iran / Russia / X has been threatened with nuclear obliteration.

Besides, the picture most likely was not of a missile heading to a NATO capital, we would've heard about that. If I recall, the Maniot simply imagined a Russian response to hypothetical NATO aggression.

Quick. Ask yourself: is it proper to be posting ICBM photos and directing them to NATO capitals? If you need a couple of seconds to answer, you've already answered wrong.

After doing that, imagine how long it would take me to get banned if I posted American nuclear warheads at European capitals.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, you can get some grasp of just what nonsense your post is.

The Ripper
11-21-2011, 12:04 PM
Quick. Ask yourself: is it proper to be posting ICBM photos and directing them to NATO capitals? If you need a couple of seconds to answer, you've already answered wrong.

Worse things have been posted. I don't see why we need to get so emotional. Far more have been urging for nuclear genocide of millions of people in various corners of the world. Don't think you're special.


After doing that, imagine how long it would take me to get banned if I posted American nuclear warheads at European capitals.

I have no idea. I don't think the banning policy on this site is very consistent.


Then perhaps, just perhaps, you can get some grasp of just what nonsense your post is.

Stop being such a martyr, it does not suit you.

beaver
11-21-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't quite understand this blind Russia partisanship among some nationalists. It has an air of fanaticism about it. Whereas Nazis will say Dolphie good, Wiinie bad, the Russophiles seem to say Russkies good, Americans bad.
We (with another Russian comrade) had a meeting in Moscow about 2005 with two colleagues - one from the Silicon valley, another - from one good consulting firm from the East Coast. They were something like investors in a little project of inventing/patenting company, we were employers. I asked them: its absolutely obvious for everyone that all pattern of computing will change soon, Big Brothers will win (I meant what is called now "cloud computing/thin clients" etc, but there were no still such notions then). Why there are no materials on the theme in the Internet (2005)? Maybe its some conspiracy of US vs. China? So that poor Chineses would buy all current American shit? :D:D:D: They were being in shock 1-2 seconds :D and then began to wave his hands (I mean - emotionally): You know nothing about the inner life of American corporations! Investors will eat the management along with the shit because of a couple of dollars and will make them to sell to China even their own mother!

Joe McCarthy
11-21-2011, 01:08 PM
Of course Britain loves being a lackey to America. It's our purpose on the international stage. The UK is the "Airstrip One" to the United States, from which American air power can depart to rain death upon any nationalist upstarts in Europe

I swear, some of you people have very vivid imaginations and deep paranoia about the United States. It'd be amusing if it were not for the fact that it feeds this 'America is the enemy' meme that so many are obsessed with.

If by 'nationalist upstarts' you mean crazies like our Magyar buddy who'd like to start WW3 by invading three countries, then yes, the UK and US would very likely respond, and rightfully so. If you mean simple immigration control though, the notion is ludicrous. In fact, Danish leftists tried to get the US to meddle in Denmark's affairs because they don't like the 'climate of hate' created by the Danish People's Party and their restrictionist immigration legislation. The result: our nigger president didn't so much as lift a finger, much less send B-52s to Copenhagen.

beaver
11-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Этот корабль предполагает натовское оборудование без современного оснащения. Изделие покупается в комплектации: ПУСТАЯ КОРОБКА + ХОДОВАЯ ЧАСТЬ, но ведь пустой корпус могут сварить и наши корабелы. Трудно представить ситуацию, когда французы сделают корпус, а мы установим на нем свою оснастку. Сложно приладить к корпусу совершенно чужого проекта, имеющего определенные габаритные характеристики, российское вооружение, электрооборудование и другие технологические составляющие. Для этого, как минимум, нужно, чтобы французские конструкторы строили корабль вместе с нашими корабелами.

http://army-news.ru/2011/01/mistral-dlya-rossii/

Saruman, pls use the Google translator.

The most strong reason from what I've read - wth, we are not going to land somewhere. We should destroy any other ship - yes. The second reason wth we should buy "ПУСТАЯ КОРОБКА + ХОДОВАЯ ЧАСТЬ" = "large floating trough"? Our officiers see mainly bribes here. If this trough is necessary - why should Russia give our workplaces to Frenches?

The Ripper
11-21-2011, 01:28 PM
In fact, Danish leftists tried to get the US to meddle in Denmark's affairs because they don't like the 'climate of hate' created by the Danish People's Party and their restrictionist immigration legislation.

Even they know what America is all about. :thumb001:

Saruman
11-21-2011, 03:38 PM
http://army-news.ru/2011/01/mistral-dlya-rossii/

Saruman, pls use the Google translator.

The most strong reason from what I've read - wth, we are not going to land somewhere. We should destroy any other ship - yes. The second reason wth we should buy "ПУСТАЯ КОРОБКА + ХОДОВАЯ ЧАСТЬ" = "large floating trough"? Our officiers see mainly bribes here. If this trough is necessary - why should Russia give our workplaces to Frenches?

Juan Carlos class is better than Mistral yes. So if it goes forward my proposal of it's use is a "damage reduction" method. I think Russia needs amphibious assault ships because they are versatile, they are not only for landing and assaults but can be used for other roles, against subs, ships even. Many navies operate them today or are planning to. That text points correctly to flaws in Mistral as opposed to Spanish design. It says Spanish ship could operate 4-6 Mig-29K's, I'm not fully sure about that as that ship is not CTOL. On Mistrals it is impossible to operate those planes that's for sure. So yes corruption is a possibility there among those calling shots.

From Mistral you could only operate these planes, subsonic Yak-38's are useless today.
3mhPjJJ-QWE

This one might be operated from Mistrals, it's not so old actually (1987 first flight so younger than Mig-29s/Su-33's). And it could be useful today with additional modifications. Actually F-35 took some aspects from Yak-41. So in order to operate planes from Mistral you'd need to revive this one. Yak-41 is purely VTOL so no need for long decks.
b3U6R8tAWvc

Plus there is an issue possibly with the height of Kamov helicopters and Mistrals hangar decks. Definitely Juan Carlos is the better choice! Plus their prices are similar too. But the question is would Spain sell those ships? Australians (Spanish variant), I doubt they would. Russia could develop it's own ships but it would cost more ofc. Currently only smaller ships of that class are being built.

Contra Mundum
11-21-2011, 05:00 PM
Quick. Ask yourself: is it proper to be posting ICBM photos and directing them to NATO capitals? If you need a couple of seconds to answer, you've already answered wrong.

After doing that, imagine how long it would take me to get banned if I posted American nuclear warheads at European capitals.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, you can get some grasp of just what nonsense your post is.

Oh knock off the phony outrage over the missile and pretending you love your country. If you loved it, you wouldn't support the demons in Washington that are destroying America, and you wouldn't support globalism and war that further weaken your country economically.

Osweo
11-21-2011, 07:10 PM
"The natural and predictable order of things".
ah, that! That Russia be a great power again, with an especial interest in its region. :shrug:

So we should become Russia's lapdog in order to remedy to this? That's rich.
You seem only able to countenance a highly limited set of alternatives. We are not a tiny irrelevant speck to Russia, why envisage a normalised relationship as something so one-sided? :confused:


Sure, one might have to prove his friendship to a former rival so as to gain his trust, but Russia has always been perceived as inherently unpredictable by its neighbours.
That's just vague hearsay, lacking in content. Chiefly effective when administered drip-drip over long periods. Spin, as they call it nowadays.

Napoleonic or not, you have furthered my point, Russia is incredibly weak. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Weak enough to scupper NATO shenanigans in Georgia and the Ukraine.

I'm not taking sides, you are.
Leave Joe's Jingoist Thanking Crew, then! :D



It failed, but the need is still there. 'Friends' such as Iran do not share similar interests apart from opposing the US of A. They could be described as rivals actually. Russia will merely support anybody who confronts the United States.
We're losing sight once more, of the fact that the US IS going around invading everywhere, and waving around threatening lists of 'who's gunna be next'. It's baffling that this doesn't BOTHER you, when you consider how the people in charge there are hellbent on de-Anglicising the US as fast as possible. You seem to have some bizarre romantic attachment to the 'anglosphere', but you need to meet a few real Hank J. Thropplewacker III's to figure out that we have precious little in common with too many people over there now. Considering that Hank's daughter Raelene is now married to Jesus Gomez, and his son to Xiao Ping Pong, this situation's getting worse with every day that passes.

I am not associating with the USA in any way, I do not recall having posted "Bomb bomb Russia!" have I?
What possible benefit would Russian friendship represent to Britain anyway? More dependence on hydrocarbons? A hostile NATO surrounding us? The USSR's isolation during the Cold War is a testimony to the fact that an alliance with the US is far more preferable to an alliance with Moscow.
Please try and think out of the 1980s. :tsk:

If Britain abandons NATO, it's then the US that are isolated, not Russia! As for benefits, it's a market, and it's a producer, and it's not some weird fanatical Muslim state. It's European, and we are European, and we should stand by each other. :shrug:


Britain shouldn't be involved in any of those rivalries, our stance should be neutral, but that's not going to happen. Shifting our allegiance to Russia will leave us in a much worse state as we would become a potential threat to US interests in America's eyes.
Pff, what are they gunna DO?!? The American people are hardly going to be foaming at the mouth demanding that we be nuked! :rolleyes:

'Either/Or' is over. It's the 21st Century now, and we're getting back to a more natural world of plural Great Powers.

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 12:10 AM
It's baffling that this doesn't BOTHER you, when you consider how the people in charge there are hellbent on de-Anglicising the US as fast as possible. You seem to have some bizarre romantic attachment to the 'anglosphere', but you need to meet a few real Hank J. Thropplewacker III's to figure out that we have precious little in common with too many people over there now. Considering that Hank's daughter Raelene is now married to Jesus Gomez, and his son to Xiao Ping Pong, this situation's getting worse with every day that passes.


Okay, so Hank J. Thropplewacker, who at least speaks English and lives in an Anglicized culture, is better replaced by Russians who are quickly being displaced by Muslims? Jesus Gomez, as alien as he is, is certainly no worse than Muslims from Central Asia for Pete's sake. Once again I think you fail to grasp just how bad the situation in Russia is:

http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/12/27/...ore-islamized/


When discussing the Islamization of the West, France is usually cited as being the worst-off of the Western democracies. It has an estimated Muslim population of 10%, perhaps as high as 15%, and the demographics of the situation — a very low birthrate among the native French, and a baby boom among the Muslim immigrants — do not bode well for the future of France.

Quote:
Russia is a special case. Its Muslim population is estimated at 10% to 12%, and its demographic situation is worse than that of France, so that Russian Islam is expected to grow rapidly. If present trends continue, Muslims will comprise a majority of the Russian military within a couple of decades.

Osweo
11-22-2011, 12:26 AM
I lived long term in Russia. I don't know what these statistics are about, but they don't reflect the reality there on the street. Obviously, I didn't go to Dagestan and Ufa, but that itself demonstrates how regionalised this (non-)problem is. As for birth rates, all my friends there have children, which is more than I can say for many in the West.

BeerBaron
11-22-2011, 12:27 AM
Okay, so Hank J. Thropplewacker, who at least speaks English and lives in an Anglicized culture, is better replaced by Russians who are quickly being displaced by Muslims? Jesus Gomez, as alien as he is, is certainly no worse than Muslims from Central Asia for Pete's sake. Once again I think you fail to grasp just how bad the situation in Russia is:

http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/12/27/...ore-islamized/

Last i heard they would be 40% by something like 2013, i will have to verify that. But if that holds, 40% of the russian military will be muslim, very shortly.

SilverKnight
11-22-2011, 12:33 AM
The US could evaporate the Iranian navy and even easier the Syrian one, but against Russia never a single chance, rather see our ships dock right at home :b ..

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 12:40 AM
I lived long term in Russia. I don't know what these statistics are about, but they don't reflect the reality there on the street. Obviously, I didn't go to Dagestan and Ufa, but that itself demonstrates how regionalised this (non-)problem is. As for birth rates, all my friends there have children, which is more than I can say for many in the West.

Look, Osweo, the white race is in trouble, as we all know, but the demographic data does not warrant singling out the US as uniquely bad when compared to Russia, and as the US is English speaking and much more powerful, it makes more sense for Britain to align with the US. Nglund is correct insofar as a British realignment against the US and with Russia would infuriate the United States, and it's much better to have Russians as less than best buddies than it is Americans, given the disparities in power.

Turkey
11-22-2011, 12:43 AM
:icon_yell:I-R-I! :icon_yell:I-R-I! :icon_yell:I-R-I!

Osweo
11-22-2011, 12:54 AM
The USA is the hegemon, and if we are shackled to you, we are going to be tied to currents of political and social thought in your country. As it stands, this is mostly poison of the worst kind, entirely unsuited for us, and best rejected as soon as possible.

Additionally, you WILL fall. Russia has certain inbuilt resiliencies against the sort of thing you're predicting for its future, which your state does not have. You already have an African president. The USA was founded from the beginning with too many dangerous universalist ideals, and is now going into decline because of it. You claim to oppose this, but go along with all the foreign policy madness the elites support, the same people who are making your future Mexican. I don't understand why you are still marching about in foreign territory when your orders are issued from a capital city which is full of your worst enemies.


Look, Osweo, the white race is in trouble, as we all know, but the demographic data does not warrant singling out the US as uniquely bad when compared to Russia, and as the US is English speaking and much more powerful, it makes more sense for Britain to align with the US. Nglund is correct insofar as a British realignment against the US and with Russia would infuriate the United States, and it's much better to have Russians as less than best buddies than it is Americans, given the disparities in power.

I will not ally with Obama and Rumsfeld just because they speak English. If you hadn't realised, almost everyone speaks good English now anyway, and plenty of us here can speak other languages to deal with foreign friends.

I don't find your power attractive, just downright repellent and dangerous. I'd rather tie myself to a wild horse that I might have some chance of breaking in than to an elephant that will charge around without paying me the blindest bit of notice. Nobody wants to play with the big stupid aggressive kid in the playground any more.

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 01:15 AM
Originally Posted by Osweo
The USA is the hegemon, and if we are shackled to you, we are going to be tied to currents of political and social thought in your country. As it stands, this is mostly poison of the worst kind, entirely unsuited for us, and best rejected as soon as possible.


You're making an argument for British neutrality, which is a much more serious argument, though it's a different issue that should be discussed elsewhere. Aligning with Russia would make Britain new and powerful adversaries.


Additionally, you WILL fall. Russia has certain inbuilt resiliencies against the sort of thing you're predicting for its future, which your state does not have. You already have an African president. The USA was founded from the beginning with too many dangerous universalist ideals, and is now going into decline because of it. You claim to oppose this, but go along with all the foreign policy madness the elites support, the same people who are making your future Mexican. I don't understand why you are still marching about in foreign territory when your orders are issued from a capital city which is full of your worst enemies.


I'm unsure what you mean by that first sentence. I've stated on several occasions that I favor better relations with Russia. The facts though are these:

White Americans have a higher birthrate than Russians while the Russian population is collapsing. The white population in this country actually increased slightly from the last census, and obviously many of those are in fact of British descent, whereas Russians are obviously not.


I don't find your power attractive, just downright repellent and dangerous.

That's neither here nor there. Yours is a recipe to have that power directed against your own country. That is unwise, to put it mildly.


I'd rather tie myself to a wild horse that I might have some chance of breaking in than to an elephant that will charge around without paying me the blindest bit of notice.

And here we have the crux of the matter - you can't stand to be the junior partner. That's understandable. You're British. But you're also wrong. The US is far from ignoring the UK in these matters.

Turkey
11-22-2011, 01:32 AM
Get thee to the Mexican border with your earthly hosts:thumb001:

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 01:40 AM
Frankly, I don't understand people who claim to be 'preservationists' and center their entire worldview around an ideology that is sure to make an enemy of the greatest military power in history. Some of you people are as mad as the Nazis were.

Peasant
11-22-2011, 02:52 AM
You're making an argument for British neutrality, which is a much more serious argument, though it's a different issue that should be discussed elsewhere. Aligning with Russia would make Britain new and powerful adversaries.

You? The US and Israel? Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait?


White Americans have a higher birthrate than Russians while the Russian population is collapsing. The white population in this country actually increased slightly from the last census, and obviously many of those are in fact of British descent, whereas Russians are obviously not.

We've still got plenty of Brits here at home in the motherland. It doesn't matter to me. Also, of course the white population grew. The worlds population is increasing. Do you mean percentage? Higher rate of births than previous? Also, do they count Middle Easterners as white on US stats?

US hegemony will fall eventually, it won't last forever. And to be honest I think the sooner the better.

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 02:54 AM
Even they know what America is all about. :thumb001:

If you mean in terms of not getting so much as a response, I suppose so - and that's even from a nigger president. This notion that the US is on stand-by to start bombing because nationalists might prohibit immigration is one of the most moronic bouts of paranoia I've seen.

That being said, I could see the US and a nationalist group going to blows under certain circumstances, but it'll almost certainly be due to the belligerent attitude of many nationalists toward the US, if it happens.

beaver
11-22-2011, 05:03 AM
That text points correctly to flaws in Mistral as opposed to Spanish design.
yes, and there are some pro about this class overall (doesnt matter Mistral or the Spain project) in the article. And Russian experts very appreciate the French engine. But I still cannot find positive opinion about the idea from navy men on Russian gunforums (they dont have money for their posts). Their opinions are like these: "yes, the Japaneses need such ships to land on Kurils, Chineses also need to land on Taiwan but we dont have such tasks anywhere. We need submarine-killers and other ship-killers to fuck any trough (including US) approaching Russian borders - yes, this is stupid puffing up cheeks and corruption without offensive doctrine (quite impossible)". Another moment - "are there not enough our dockyards and engineers/qualified workers (including currently unemployed btw) to make such stupid trough?"

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 07:03 AM
You? The US and Israel? Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait?


If Britain aligned with Russia it'd have the US Navy to its west and a hostile continent full of NATO members off its coast. Russia being where it is does not lend itself to any geographical advantages, and geopolitics is, after all, about geography.


Higher rate of births than previous?

I believe it's based in large measure on immigration but the white American birthrate is still higher than the Russian and it has recently experienced a minor uptick.


Also, do they count Middle Easterners as white on US stats?


On the non-Hispanic white stats, they do, yes. Here's the numbers from 2000-2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_Whites


However it should be noted that though Non Hispanic Whites are declining as a percentage, in actual numbers they are still growing. From 2000 - 2010 the Non Hispanic White population grew from 194,552,774 to 196,817,552 - A growth of 1.2% over the 10 year period.

The Middle Eastern-North African segment is small, so it couldn't account for much of this increase of over two million.

By contrast the Russian population actually shrunk by almost four million from 2000-2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Declining_population

BanjaLuka
11-22-2011, 11:10 AM
So we are getting close to the time when Russia and China will provide support for the NVA in the USA :eek: :laugh:



u3Cx1dLopNs


and give them some close air support :p:D

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P0MULr08IkY/TlYJwg49m8I/AAAAAAAAAIQ/x9wp7VD_ttE/s400/Troll+Face+Emoticon3.png

Ouistreham
11-22-2011, 11:16 AM
When discussing the Islamization of the West, France is usually cited as being the worst-off of the Western democracies. It has an estimated Muslim population of 10%, perhaps as high as 15%, and the demographics of the situation — a very low birthrate among the native French, and a baby boom among the Muslim immigrants — do not bode well for the future of France.

Completely wrong.
So stupidly wrong that this insane text must be of American/Jewish origin.

There are indeed about 10% of Muslims in France. But their birthrate is very low :
• Being here for three generations, France's Arabs are largely assimilated as far as the way of life is concerned. Especially young girls: when you are free to make up your mind between a European way of life and Islamic women slavery, what are you going to choose? Most women born in Muslim communities run away, they flee. The boys remain alone with all kind of sexual frustration, they become typical dysfunctional young coloured males, end up in crime, which is not the best prerequisite for a children-rich family life. (*)
• French birthrate is exceptionally high. The Region Pays de Loire (Nantes, Anjou) has probably the highest children per woman ratio in Europe, and also the lowest share of immigrants in its population.
• The big problem in France are the Blacks. They are the Jewish establishment holy cows, any suggestion to curb the African invasion is deemed as highly un-PC. In France you can criticize and ridicule Islam as much as you want, but putting in question Black proliferation is taboo. Even Marine Le Pen doesn't dare to.

(*) Truth be said, there is however a growing trend among Turks and Moroccans to import "fresh" spouses from their home countries, uncontaminated with European culture and mindset.

Turkey
11-22-2011, 11:21 AM
Completely wrong.
So stupidly wrong that this insane text must be of American/Jewish origin.

There are indeed about 10% of Muslims in France. But their birthrate is very low :
• Being here for three generations, France's Arabs are largely assimilated as far as the way of life is concerned. Especially young girls: when you are free to make up your mind between a European way of life and Islamic women slavery, what are you going to choose? Most women born in Muslim communities run away, they flee. The boys remain alone with all kind of sexual frustration, they become typical dysfunctional young coloured males, end up in crime, which is not the best prerequisite for a children-rich family life. (*)
• French birthrate is exceptionally high. The Region Pays de Loire (Nantes, Anjou) has probably the highest children per woman ratio in Europe, and also the lowest share of immigrants in its population.
• The big problem in France are the Blacks. They are the Jewish establishment holy cows, any suggestion to curb the African invasion is deemed as highly un-PC. In France you can criticize and ridicule Islam as much as you want, but putting in question Black proliferation is taboo. Even Marine Le Pen doesn't dare to.

(*) Truth be said, there is however a growing trend among Turks and Moroccans to import "fresh" spouses from their home countries, uncontaminated with European culture and mindset.

That's right. Islam isn't a problem because we are permitted to deal with them.

Joe McCarthy
11-22-2011, 11:23 AM
Well, assuming you're correct you've just made Russia look even worse demographically than France.

Thanks for the assistance. :p

2DREZQ
11-22-2011, 03:45 PM
Oscars + Kirov = big hazard for US Carrier Battlegroup.:D It cannot survive 50-70 Granits, even now in 2011.

Many people see a great weapon system and say: "Boy the game is over now! "
It isn't the weapon that wins, it's tactics and strategy. Game-changing weapons only come along once in a while, and first-use in combat usually reveals serious flaws in tactics that limit the effectiveness of said weapons system. Additionally, strategic decisions made on both sides prior to "going hot" have a HUGE impact. ("do we really want to sink a US carrier and kill hundreds of US sailors?")

Don't look at weapons spec. sheets and think you can tell who is going to "win". If it could be done that way, geeks would rule the world.

beaver
11-22-2011, 04:03 PM
"do we really want to sink a US carrier and kill hundreds of US sailors?"
What i've understood from Russian gunforums where navi officiers are present: YES! If there is a "combat mission" (боевая задача) - immediately!

Any second of thinking = the enemy will destroy all your systems and you will die for nothing. I dont doubt US, British, French, German officiers think in parallel (sorry for missing someone else :) )

2DREZQ
11-22-2011, 06:13 PM
What i've understood from Russian gunforums where navi officiers are present: YES! If there is a "combat mission" (боевая задача) - immediately!


I don't really care what a bunch of sailors think. This post demonstrates a certain lack of depth in your thinking.

Strategy is not devised by rank-and-file sailors and soldiers who want to try out their new toys. It is devised and implemented by those who control the actions of the nation and it's military. What do the admirals think?

(What would the war have looked like if Hipper and Scheer hadn't been leashed so tightly (Jutland?)) Don't answer here, different thread needed.

BTW, if you are anxious to see any of this or any other situation go hot just so you can see what the big toys do, then you are a wanker who doesn't give a shit about the lives of the men in uniform who will die for your amusement. Do you personally know anyone who is serving in any armed forces? I like to talk guns n planes as much as the next guy, but I never forget that it is human lives we are talking about.

2DREZQ
11-22-2011, 06:52 PM
It's good the Russians are finally standing up for a friend.

I think you meant "ally", nations don't really have friends.


but the US likes to pick on weak opponents.

"pick on" is a pejorative that makes geopolitics sound like a school playground. Oh, can you think of anytime that the Soviets ever "pushed around" a smaller, weaker schoolmate?


They never attack the strong.

You make engaging in military action against an on-par opponent sound "manly" or "noble". In reality it is just plain stupid and, shockingly enough, dangerous.


I doubt they would start a war with a major nuclear power like Russia.

You are right. However, from the context of your post, I suspect you find this unwillingness somehow cowardly.


I support a strong Russia. The world needs a balance of power.

The 2nd half of this sentence is arguable, depending on where you live. The 1st half bears no logical relation to that stated need.


Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has been running wild and attacking smaller countries.

Emotion-laden phraseology, intended to induce an emotional, not logical, state of mind.


The invasion and occupation of Iraq would have never happened if the USSR was still in existence.

Very many things would not have happened if the USSR still existed, most of them good. Many other things would have happened if the USSR still existed, most of them bad. You aren't wishing the USSR still existed, are you? A lot of other things less reprehensible than that would also have prevented US aggression in Iraq.

Today we live in a world where there exists the real possibility of a nuclear weapon being used somewhere. But we used to live in a world where there was a real possibility of ALL the nuclear weapons being used EVERYWHERE. I find nostalgia for those "good old days" very hard to fathom.


Balance of power is a good thing and I hope Russia gets stronger

Again, B.O.P. arguments can get pretty deep, but do we NEED a resurgent Soviet Union to have it?

I couldn't care less if the russians want to send a few more of their underpaid, overworked, and underappreciated sailors on a vacation in the Med. I hope they all get a nice tan and T-shirts for their families.

beaver
11-22-2011, 08:01 PM
This post demonstrates a certain lack of depth in your thinking.
No problem, work with officiers and soldiers determining what is good and what is wrong on their own. Good luck!

Albion
11-22-2011, 08:06 PM
Aligning with Russia would make Britain new and powerful adversaries.

Such as? I can think of none apart from America and upset Baltic states. Baltic states - Oh I'm supper scared now! :D

Germany is already courting Russia and so far there is little America can do but complain about it.
If Russia were to get the key nations of Western Europe on side then NATO would be undermined as would American influence but also American options to force a country back into line.
I doubt America could do as the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia, even if they tried it with a major West European country who wasn't exactly friendly with Russia the Russians would still likely intervene.


The white population in this country actually increased slightly from the last census, and obviously many of those are in fact of British descent, whereas Russians are obviously not.

I know there's a fair few in Moscow, mostly lefties like Osweo and Loki who adore the whole personality cult portrayed by Putin.
What are the exact numbers though?

A lot of the modern Russophiles are basically modern versions of the old Communist-leaning trade unionists. A lot of them leaned that way and elements of Liebour do so too, Ralph Miliband the farther of the mIliband brothers is a good example. No doubt they've been influenced by him.

Herge captured it quite well:
http://eternalexploration.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/screen-shot-2011-11-10-at-12-04-16.png?w=640&h=308

Foreigners idolising America is just as bad.


That's neither here nor there. Yours is a recipe to have that power directed against your own country. That is unwise, to put it mildly.

You're not president yet McCarthy. ;)


And here we have the crux of the matter - you can't stand to be the junior partner. That's understandable.

Junior partner to America, junior partner to the Sovi.. Russia - it matters but little.
It's either this or going it alone like France. France hasn't done too badly from it, but it's global influence isn't exactly amazing (then again neither is ours) but respectable.
At the moment it looks like Germany actually has designs on being the hegemonal power in Europe via the EU. Germany is very friendly with Russia.
You saw my post earlier.


You're British. But you're also wrong.

Lol, belittling and slightly patronising. Don't worry, we'll do as we're told like a good little pet.
You're very good at flatly stating the obvious points about the Anglo-American relationship but you don't exactly win any friends by blatant talk of superiority of yourselves and inferiority of another.


The US is far from ignoring the UK in these matters.

Good. Personally I'd like to see Britain repair the relationship with Russia and have more of a balance between the Anglosphere, Europe and Russia.
The old British sitting on the fence attitude still prevails in foreign relations whether we are currently close with America or not.

Ideally I'd like to see us as mediator between America and Russia, but since our relations are currently worse due to many issues including some Chechens in London and a radioactive spy I don't think we are eligible for this role yet.


In France you can criticize and ridicule Islam as much as you want, but putting in question Black proliferation is taboo. Even Marine Le Pen doesn't dare to.

Because France is trying to keep its influence up in West Africa. It doesn't want to upset Africans.

beaver
11-22-2011, 08:44 PM
A lot of the modern Russophiles are basically modern versions of the old Communist-leaning trade unionists.
Hands off Soviet Russia (English dockers)! :D

Osweo
11-22-2011, 09:02 PM
Such as? I can think of none apart from America and upset Baltic states. Baltic states - Oh I'm super scared now! :D
ESTONIA!!!!!!!! :clap: Karl will get in his dragonboat (that the Norse obviously copied from Finnic originals), and sack our isle! :bowlol::thumb001:


I know there's a fair few in Moscow, mostly lefties like Osweo and Loki who adore the whole personality cult portrayed by Putin.
:rotfl:
Putin is a leader who has put 'Sovereignty' at the CENTRE of his programme. Good Gods, I'd faint to hear the same from our bastards here!

As for personality cult, well, the man is a MAN. Credit where credit's due! Not some slimey fucking creep who arse-kissed his way up the greasy pole. I'd even be tempted to have national service of some kind (military/intelligence/medical career) as a PREREQUISITE of political involvement. THAT should clear out a lot of the chaff!

A lot of the modern Russophiles are basically modern versions of the old Communist-leaning trade unionists. A lot of them leaned that way and elements of Liebour do so too, Ralph Miliband the farther of the mIliband brothers is a good example. No doubt they've been influenced by him.
What the FUCK are you talking about here? :sherlock:
Milibands are Jews and HATE Russia, as is their national duty. I was in Moscow, and talked to diplomats about David Miliband when he was foreign secretary and few have done more to sour our relationship with the Russians than this bastard.


Herge captured it quite well:
http://eternalexploration.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/screen-shot-2011-11-10-at-12-04-16.png?w=640&h=308
I saw that show a few weeks ago too. Great stuff! :D

But that's from the 1920s. Stalin's industrialisation miracle blows that crap out of the water. And Russia in 2011 has piss all to do with it.

Junior partner to America, junior partner to the Sovi.. Russia - it matters but little.
We'd be equals with Russia. And Russia is a proper ethno-state. If we got in line with them, there'd be less crap from LA university campuses getting a hearing over here. Even when Russia was Communist, it still acknowledged certain nationalities as 'state-building' ones, and thus more worthy from a historical and political point of view.

See Stalin's ideas on nationhood here;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26922&langid=2
= a damn sight better than any crap we've heard from the US establishment for a good long while, or ever, indeed.


It's either this or going it alone like France. France hasn't done too badly from it, but it's global influence isn't exactly amazing (then again neither is ours) but respectable.
Fuck 'global influence'. Hasn't done anyone any good ever. Better to concentrate on sorting your own house out. Nobody appreciates a nosey bastard neighbour poking his nose around.


Lol, belittling and slightly patronising. Don't worry, we'll do as we're told like a good little pet.
You're very good at flatly stating the obvious points about the Anglo-American relationship but you don't exactly win any friends by blatant talk of superiority of yourselves and inferiority of another.
I'd prefer to hear more honest talk of it all. Enough of smokescreens and spin!


Good. Personally I'd like to see Britain repair the relationship with Russia and have more of a balance between the Anglosphere, Europe and Russia.


:thumb001:

Albion
11-22-2011, 09:43 PM
Putin is a leader who has put 'Sovereignty' at the CENTRE of his programme. Good Gods, I'd faint to hear the same from our bastards here!

As for personality cult, well, the man is a MAN. Credit where credit's due! Not some slimey fucking creep who arse-kissed his way up the greasy pole. I'd even be tempted to have national service of some kind (military/intelligence/medical career) as a PREREQUISITE of political involvement. THAT should clear out a lot of the chaff!

I know a lot of western leaders are wet blankets and that Putin does do some good for his nation, but I don't believe that most "Putinites" follow him for this reason.
A lot of people rally around him like sheep to the Shepard whilst all the while believing that they are really individual and alternative for following some Russian leader. Most Putinites don't actually consider what he actually does for Russia in my opinion.


Milibands are Jews and HATE Russia, as is their national duty. I was in Moscow, and talked to diplomats about David Miliband when he was foreign secretary and few have done more to sour our relationship with the Russians than this bastard.

I was talking about communism and the far left in general here, not Russia. Liebour and the unions are full of old borderline communists.


We'd be equals with Russia.

For how long Os? We're equal now but when Russia inevitably overtakes us economically and regains its geopolitical footing, what then? I see junior partner all over again.
The differences aren't as great as with America but they still exist. Upon saying that though I'd rather be allied with Russia on a long leash than with America on a short one.


And Russia is a proper ethno-state. If we got in line with them, there'd be less crap from LA university campuses getting a hearing over here. Even when Russia was Communist, it still acknowledged certain nationalities as 'state-building' ones, and thus more worthy from a historical and political point of view.

That is worthy of praise I agree. I don't really like how they retain a lot of non-Russian areas though, but some of them are necessary.


Fuck 'global influence'. Hasn't done anyone any good ever. Better to concentrate on sorting your own house out. Nobody appreciates a nosey bastard neighbour poking his nose around.

There's some truth in this, but to be a country with no influence whatsoever is to be a country ignored. Being ignored leaves us to our own devices but at the same time leaves us with few options to further our own interests or to work with other nations for protection or a common goal.
Of course ambitions of being a superpower would just be silly, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to fade into the shadows neither.

Albion
11-22-2011, 09:50 PM
Ralph Miliband (7 January 1924 – 21 May 1994), born Adolphe Miliband, was a Belgian-born British sociologist known as a prominent Marxist thinker. He has been described as "one of the best known academic Marxists of his generation"

he became involved in left-wing politics, and made a personal commitment to the cause of socialism at the grave of Karl Marx.

During the 1960s, he arose as a prominent member of the New Left movement in Britain, which was critical of established Stalinist governments in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. He published several noted books on Marxist theory and the criticism of capitalism, such as Parliamentary Socialism (1961) and Marxism and Politics (1977).

Miliband's ability to merge theoretical discussion of Marxism with practical action in trying to promote revolutionary socialism led Duncan Hallas to characterising him as floating "between the best of the academic left and revolutionary left".

Osweo
11-22-2011, 10:01 PM
I know a lot of western leaders are wet blankets and that Putin does do some good for his nation, but I don't believe that most "Putinites" follow him for this reason.
A lot of people rally around him like sheep to the Shepard whilst all the while believing that they are really individual and alternative for following some Russian leader. Most Putinites don't actually consider what he actually does for Russia in my opinion.
:confused: Where do you see these Putinites!?

Are you just talking about the LoLz pictures people make of him with his gun and the funny captions?!?

People who want to be 'individual' get tattoos, like all the other drones, not start supporting Putin!

I was talking about communism and the far left in general here, not Russia. Liebour and the unions are full of old borderline communists.
:shrug: And such people care nothing for the present Russian regime.


For how long Os? We're equal now but when Russia inevitably overtakes us economically and regains its geopolitical footing, what then? I see junior partner all over again.
God Almighty, I'm not advocating joining a unified state with them, like Belarus is doing! :rolleyes: What CAN Russia do to harm us, anyroad? The English are actually well liked over there. There's no public demand for demeaning and drubbing us. Russians love London, our music, our styles...

Any why always this self-deprecation!!??? Britain is STILL one of THE major states on this planet. I know we're not quite in the USA's or Estonia's league, but for fuck's sake, how much more powerful is Russia than us!?

The differences aren't as great as with America but they still exist. Upon saying that though I'd rather be allied with Russia on a long leash than with America on a short one.
Then we agree. :thumb001:

That is worthy of praise I agree. I don't really like how they retain a lot of non-Russian areas though, but some of them are necessary.
That's not really our business. But a Nationalist UK (forgive the temporary contradiction in that! :D ) could only have a good effect on its allies in this situation. As we English are getting far more conciliatory with our neighbours on this archipelago, so our example might prompt rethinking of Russian ethno-history. You see how many of us on these boards call ourselves 'Celto-Germanic'? You might see the day when Russians remember that a lot of them are Finno-Slavonic under our gentle guidance... :D

There's some truth in this, but to be a country with no influence whatsoever is to be a country ignored. Being ignored leaves us to our own devices but at the same time leaves us with few options to further our own interests or to work with other nations for protection or a common goal.
Of course ambitions of being a superpower would just be silly, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to fade into the shadows neither.
Oh for a quiet life!

Abandon this stupid zeal to interfere! We NEVER do it right, and it NEVER does us any favours in the long run. Nobody is grateful, even when we drag em out of the stone age! Fuck em all.

2DREZQ
11-22-2011, 10:20 PM
No problem, work with officiers and soldiers determining what is good and what is wrong on their own. Good luck!



?????

We might have a translation problem here.

Albion
11-23-2011, 12:30 AM
:confused: Where do you see these Putinites!?

Are you just talking about the LoLz pictures people make of him with his gun and the funny captions?!?

People who want to be 'individual' get tattoos, like all the other drones, not start supporting Putin!

No, nothing like that. Just some people on youtube praising him as if he were a god for standing up to American imperialism whilst ignoring his domestic policies and stances on other issues.


God Almighty, I'm not advocating joining a unified state with them, like Belarus is doing!

I know.


What CAN Russia do to harm us, anyroad? The English are actually well liked over there. There's no public demand for demeaning and drubbing us. Russians love London, our music, our styles...

That is good to hear. When I watch RT it sort of makes me believe the exact opposite sometimes, I suppose they're mainly against the government though.


Any why always this self-deprecation!!??? Britain is STILL one of THE major states on this planet. I know we're not quite in the USA's or Estonia's league, but for fuck's sake, how much more powerful is Russia than us!?

I know it is, but this is what I'am saying - we are not a superpower but still have some clout left.
Russia is currently at a similar level I would say since the fall of the USSR.


That's not really our business. But a Nationalist UK (forgive the temporary contradiction in that! :D ) could only have a good effect on its allies in this situation. As we English are getting far more conciliatory with our neighbours on this archipelago, so our example might prompt rethinking of Russian ethno-history. You see how many of us on these boards call ourselves 'Celto-Germanic'? You might see the day when Russians remember that a lot of them are Finno-Slavonic under our gentle guidance... :D

:thumb001:


Oh for a quiet life!

Abandon this stupid zeal to interfere! We NEVER do it right, and it NEVER does us any favours in the long run. Nobody is grateful, even when we drag em out of the stone age! Fuck em all.

I see what you mean. I have thought this myself sometimes but haven't been convinced yet. Sometimes I think it'd be a lot less troublesome if we just stopped seeking to be a prominent player on the world stage. But as you can see, that idea hasn't won out yet.
Russia confuses me, they are quite "quiet" but then suddenly make a load of noise when America does something. Well, not that confusing I suppose. :p

Maybe you're right.

Joe McCarthy
11-23-2011, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Albion
Such as? I can think of none apart from America and upset Baltic states. Baltic states - Oh I'm supper scared now!

I frankly find the whole discussion to be absurd as there's no way Britain is going to realign with Russia, but if they did, they would have the US and the remainder of NATO surrounding them. European governments are not Russophiles, and certainly not the current French government. Even thinking that Britain might do so misunderstands the whole paradigm of international relations. States, being rational actors, don't consciously trade in a superior power for an inferior power, and certainly when doing so will antagonize the superior power. In short, states are not crazy, or at least not usually so, and I don't think the British establishment is so.


If Russia were to get the key nations of Western Europe on side then NATO would be undermined as would American influence but also American options to force a country back into line.
I doubt America could do as the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia, even if they tried it with a major West European country who wasn't exactly friendly with Russia the Russians would still likely intervene.


America is a democratic state. We're not Russians. :D


I know there's a fair few in Moscow, mostly lefties like Osweo and Loki who adore the whole personality cult portrayed by Putin.
What are the exact numbers though?


That's a hard question to answer. My own best estimate of the low end is that there are about as many people of British descent in the US as there are in Britain. It could very well be higher though.


You're not president yet McCarthy.

I don't need to be. :) I know how foreign policy works. If Britain realigned with Russia there'd be a highly pissed off United States, and no one in their right mind wants to see a highly pissed off United States.


Lol, belittling and slightly patronising. Don't worry, we'll do as we're told like a good little pet.


I didn't think it patronizing at all. It was a commentary on the British desire to be on top.

Albion
11-23-2011, 01:27 AM
I frankly find the whole discussion to be absurd as there's no way Britain is going to realign with Russia, but if they did, they would have the US and the remainder of NATO surrounding them.

Yes, it is unlikely. I doubt NATO would do anything though, if you can't win in Vietnam then you're definitely not going to win in Britain.


Even thinking that Britain might do so misunderstands the whole paradigm of international relations. States, being rational actors, don't consciously trade in a superior power for an inferior power, and certainly when doing so will antagonize the superior power. In short, states are not crazy, or at least not usually so, and I don't think the British establishment is so.


I know, I was just dwelling on alternative what-ifs for a while there.


I know how foreign policy works. If Britain realigned with Russia there'd be a highly pissed off United States, and no one in their right mind wants to see a highly pissed off United States.

Those be fightin' words. :p

beaver
11-23-2011, 04:45 AM
?????

We might have a translation problem here.

What problems? An officier should execute the order and immediately, he shouldnt think about "mothers of American sailors" etc. In our current situation he will not have just some seconds to think in any case. And Americans have demonstrated to the all world that they are not too obsessed about some "mothers". You maybe watch too many Hollywood movies. In reality nobody will think - neither Russian nor American

2DREZQ
11-23-2011, 01:26 PM
What problems? An officier should execute the order and immediately, he shouldnt think about "mothers of American sailors" etc. In our current situation he will not have just some seconds to think in any case. And Americans have demonstrated to the all world that they are not too obsessed about some "mothers". You maybe watch too many Hollywood movies. In reality nobody will think - neither Russian nor American

I guess what we have is a not translation difficulties.

I will try again.

The weapons that might be used in any confrontation are not what counts, unless it comes to a straight-up fight. Then, and only then, do they matter. Proposed, hypothetical, or undeployed weapons don't matter at all in a battle (They DO matter in long-range strategic thinking, though.)

What matters is the plans and intentions of those in control politically. Officers and men just do as they are told. (re: USA in Indochina) Of course sailors act quickly, and without regard for the lives of opponents when things go HOT! The people who consider the lives of soldiers and sailors are the POLITICAL LEADERS. They have to decide if it is "worth it" to piss off the leadership and citizens of another country by killing their sons in uniform. Usually, it is not.

beaver
11-23-2011, 02:19 PM
I will try again.

The weapons that might be used in any confrontation are not what counts, unless it comes to a straight-up fight. Then, and only then, do they matter. Proposed, hypothetical, or undeployed weapons don't matter at all in a battle (They DO matter in long-range strategic thinking, though.)

What matters is the plans and intentions of those in control politically. Officers and men just do as they are told. (re: USA in Indochina) Of course sailors act quickly, and without regard for the lives of opponents when things go HOT! The people who consider the lives of soldiers and sailors are the POLITICAL LEADERS. They have to decide if it is "worth it" to piss off the leadership and citizens of another country by killing their sons in uniform. Usually, it is not.

well, the political leaders should think. The officers should only fulfill the mission and they think (and write on forums) only in this way - the battle task + how to fulfill it? Yes, if Russian officers got the order to attack Kiev e.g. there would be a revolt with great probability. But Americans? They had full moral authority after "Gorbachev - matreshka - perestroyka" and zero now. No doubt, if NATO only could create "Lybia" in Russia it would create it (its general opinion that I can observe). NATO's pilots would fly above Russia and destroy all with the same pleasure as in Lybia. So, any Russian officer would push the button without any thinking.

and yes, my English is far from perfection but the things are simple enough

2DREZQ
11-23-2011, 03:46 PM
if NATO only could create "Lybia" in Russia it would create it (its general opinion that I can observe). NATO's pilots would fly above Russia and destroy all with the same pleasure as in Lybia.

No reason to do that, and no pleasure in its execution.

and yes, my English is far from perfection but the things are simple enough

Actually, you are doing pretty well. Your english beats my russian, or anything besides english.:)

By the way; Did the Russians say they were in Syrian waters to prevent NATO attack, or is that just someone's interpretation of their actions?

beaver
11-23-2011, 04:17 PM
By the way; Did the Russians say they were in Syrian waters to prevent NATO attack, or is that just someone's interpretation of their actions?

there are many smart guys on this forum (but not only smart :) ) and you can at least feel the common mood. And you can find there other links.
http://talks.guns.ru/forummessage/151/780153-28.html
Pls use google translator.
I would say the reaction just to this action is rather weak. The whole situation about Syria is of real interest.

European blood
11-30-2011, 12:15 PM
US carrier strike force enters Syrian waters. Russian carrier en route


The USS Bush enters Syrian waters

The Syrian crisis aassumed a big power dimension this week with the build-up of rival United States and Russia naval air carrier armadas in Syrian waters, debkafile's military sources report.

The USS George H.W. Bush arrived Wednesday, Nov. 23, in the wake of the three Russian warships anchored earlier opposite Tartus which established a command post in the Syrian port. They will be augmented by Russia's only air carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is due in mid-week.

By deploying 70 ship-borne fighter-bombers plus three heavy guided missile cruisers and five guided missile destroyers opposite Syria, Washington has laid down military support for any intervention the Arab League in conjunction with Turkey may decide on.

Bashar Assad can see for himself that Washington has hoisted a nuclear aerial umbrella to protect its allies, Israel, Turkey, and Jordan, against the retaliation his armed forces high command pledged Friday for the deaths of six Syrian air force elite pilots in an ambush Thursday.

For some time, Ankara has been weighing the creation of a protected haven for rebels and refugees inside Syria. France has proposed slicing "humanitarian corridors" through Syria for them to flee safely from military tank and gunfire and secure supply of food, medicines and other essential supplies to the cities under army siege.

Both plans would depend on being safeguarded by substantial ground and air strength inside Syria which would certainly face fierce resistance from Assad's military.

The Arab League has scheduled weekend meetings to decide how to proceed after Damascus ignored its Friday deadline for accepting hundreds of monitors. Saturday, Nov. 26, AL finance ministers will discuss economic sanctions. In the past 48 hours, at least 70 people were reported killed as the Syrian army continued its crackdown in the face of spreading armed opposition.

The Russian Kuznetzov carrier and its accompanying strike vessels will join the three Russian warships parked opposite Tartus for more than a week. It will enter the same Syrian offshore waters as the USS Bush and the US Sixth Fleet, which is permanently posted in the Mediterranean.

The Syrian crisis is therefore building up to a superpower face-off unparalleled since the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union ended in the nineties, debkafile's military sources note.

While Washington clearly stands ready to back operations against the Assad regime, Moscow is drawing a red line around his presidential palace in Damascus. The Kremlin is warning the US, NATO and the Arab League that they will not be allowed to repeat their feat in Libya of overthrowing Muammar Qaddafi against Assad.

In the face of this escalating big power standoff and the high possibility of the Syrian ruler deciding to lash out against his country's neighbors, the Israeli, Jordanian and Turkey armies have declared a high state of war preparedness.

http://www.debka.com/article/21521/

Joe McCarthy
11-30-2011, 12:38 PM
It's starting to resemble Soviet-American conflict during the Yom Kippur War.

beaver
11-30-2011, 01:06 PM
It's starting to resemble Soviet-American conflict during the Yom Kippur War.
No way, Russia is to weak currently to conflict with anyone.

Turkophagos
11-30-2011, 07:59 PM
No way, Russia is to weak currently to conflict with anyone.

http://www.acus.org/files/images/afp%2011%2030%2010%20Russian%20nuclear%20weapons.p review.jpg

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5228-769639.jpg

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/rusakula.jpg

https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/330px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png/34413207/330px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png



These should be more than enough to "conflict" with everyone.

(Joe make sure you're near the bathroom if you're gonna check the pics above)

beaver
11-30-2011, 09:52 PM
These should be more than enough to "conflict" with everyone.

This is "must have" but of no use in the reality. Joe can sleep well

Something wrong happened with vodka about 1985

2DREZQ
12-01-2011, 07:33 PM
Interesting.

Somewhere around 1985 Russia had about 45,000 of something that the US had less of.

They also have a submarine and a big metal frozen sausage tube on a giant multi-wheel transport.

I wonder what all that means?

Turkophagos
12-01-2011, 09:37 PM
Interesting.

Somewhere around 1985 Russia had about 45,000 of something that the US had less of.

They also have a submarine and a big metal frozen sausage tube on a giant multi-wheel transport.

I wonder what all that means?



It means you don't fuck with Syria if Russia won't allow you to.

2DREZQ
12-02-2011, 12:12 AM
It means you don't fuck with Syria if Russia won't allow you to.


It means you can't be bothered to use graphs with labels on the axis', and you can find photos of Russian submarines and missile transporters on the internet.

Shockingly enough, not every disagreement between world powers is immediately decided by who has the greatest capacity to burn the world down in a thermonuclear hell.

Do you seriously believe that Russian leadership would use nuclear weapons if the NATO decided to attack Syria, even over the bodies of Russian sailors?

Really?

TheBorrebyViking
12-02-2011, 12:25 AM
I think this is great. The USA is fighting wars that just send more immigrants into our lands and doing nothing but makes Israel a little bit better off.

BeerBaron
12-02-2011, 12:27 AM
It means you don't fuck with Syria if Russia won't allow you to.

Nice graph, it leaves out the effectiveness of the weapons, accuracy and what kind they are, Russia used large quantities because they had inferior systems to the USA. Russia knew they had inferior systems which is why they fought so hard to have the US's PEACEKEEPER ICBM decommissioned with the salt treaty.

Russia won't start a nuclear war with the USA over a shit hole like Syria, its just more political bolstering from Putin because the Russian elections are coming up, that small contingent of Russian ships would never attack the US Navy.

beaver
12-02-2011, 06:55 AM
Nice graph, it leaves out the effectiveness of the weapons, accuracy and what kind they are, Russia used large quantities because they had inferior systems to the USA. Russia knew they had inferior systems which is why they fought so hard to have the US's PEACEKEEPER ICBM decommissioned with the salt treaty.

Russia won't start a nuclear war with the USA over a shit hole like Syria, its just more political bolstering from Putin because the Russian elections are coming up, that small contingent of Russian ships would never attack the US Navy.
and US Navy will never attack Russians. In the situation about Syria, if Westerners decide to attack Syria they will attack and Russia wil not respond. So, all this about Syria + Russia ships is a stupid bullshit. Just a some sort of diplomacy.

2DREZQ
12-03-2011, 06:24 PM
US Navy will never attack Russians.

You know that, and I know that, but there are some posters here who seem to WANT it to happen.

Sort an apocalyptic wet dream.

BeerBaron
12-03-2011, 06:32 PM
You know that, and I know that, but there are some posters here who seem to WANT it to happen.

Sort an apocalyptic wet dream.

Most don't want it to happen, and most know it won't. This is just Putin playing Soviet style political chicken because of upcoming elections.

beaver
12-03-2011, 06:50 PM
You know that, and I know that, but there are some posters here who seem to WANT it to happen.

Sort an apocalyptic wet dream.
Let them dream. On Russian gunforums all this (Russian fleet is going to Syria) was perceived like full bulshit in the best case. Yes, several complexes S-400/Triumth SOLD to Syria could close the porblem (NATO would overcome this but with very serious losses, they wouldnt begin). But Americans just asked ours (about 1-2 years ago) not to sell there even S-300 :) Game is over.

beaver
12-03-2011, 06:58 PM
This is just Putin playing Soviet style political chicken because of upcoming elections.
yes, the current Russian mood is quite different from the mood in Corbachev times (Westerners were perceived almost like gods but now...)