Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: wiktorkovalski on June 21, 2015, 10:25:57 PM

Title: "Army 2015"
Post by: wiktorkovalski on June 21, 2015, 10:25:57 PM
The unprecedented International Military-Technical Forum "ARMY-2015" in Moscow has finished its work on June 19, 2015.Strengthening the role of the Russian Federation in the international political arena has led to an unprecedented rise in the interest of the West to the situation in the development of advanced weapons and military equipment in this country. Moreover, a closer attention is paid to the partners of Moscow in military-technical sphere, including Belarus.
With some 5,000 items on display in an area including 100,000 sq meters of open space and 40,000 sq meters of pavilion space, Army-2015 was divided into 50 thematic sectors, aiming to cover all possible fields of military technology.
According to the press release of the State Military and Industrial Committee of Belarus, "The leading enterprises of the Belarusian military-industrial complex presented at the Army-2015 new samples of their products, including those developed in collaboration with their Russian partners."
It is no secret that the current military-technical cooperation between Belarus and Russia is developing due to the general political and military-strategic interests, as well as to a high degree of economic integration. However, the days of "absolute" choice of Belarusian companies while concluding new contracts since the Soviet Union doesn't work anymore. A high degree of competition in the global arms market has become a stimulus for Belarus to develop new solutions, military thought and scientific technological innovations in order to strengthen security and defence.
And Belarus has made a major breakthrough, achieving uniqueness of the national military-industrial complex' products. Numerous samples of demonstrated products are the best proof of the great potential for further deepening of bilateral military-technical cooperation.
Among demonstrated vehicles Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant brought a new 8-wheel truck MZKT-600201 (8x8) and an upgraded 6-wheeler MZKT-600100 (6x6). MZKT-600100 is markedly different in appearance from the previous model. MZKT-600100 has got a new cabin with a hatch in the roof and a modified interior. The engine is 420 hp YAMZ-7513, maximum speed is 110 kph, the range - 1000 km, load capacity - 12500 kg, GVW - 26 tonnes.
The more so, the Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant has demonstrated the developed MZKT-500200 (4x4) military cross-country road-size chassis with an independent suspension. And these models are only a small part of the products exhibited at the forum.
One of the logical outcome of the successful Belarus' participation in the International Military-Technical Forum "Army 2015" and the continued expansion of mutually beneficial military-technical cooperation was the signing of contract on June 16, 2015 between the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Belarus and the holding "Helicopters of Russia" of State Corporation Rostec for delivery of twelve military transport helicopters Mi-8 MTV-5 in 2016 -2017.
According to the general director of the holding "Helicopters of Russia" Alexander Mikheyev, "The Republic of Belarus is an important partner of Russia in the sphere of military-technical cooperation. Military transport helicopters Mi-8 MTV-5 are to help the Union State to raise defence and to expand the capacity of the Armed Forces. The signing of such a large contract is another step in strengthening the friendship and business relationship between the two countries."
So, skeptics, who are actively discussing in the media the idea of reducing the volume of military-technical cooperation between the two countries, should do their best to find at least some reasons for doubt.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on June 21, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
Yet you never question, why build such a huge military, when in truth, no one is threatening Russia?
Think about that, we deconstructed the USSR without firing a shot, and suddenly Putin is concerned that he may be attacked?

The answer is one of two options, he's either a paranoid schizophrenic, or a megalomaniac preparing for war, hence the push for Nationalism.
Be very afraid, this man will get you all killed if you all stay on this path to war. Despite what you're being told, Russia cannot fight a war against an allied free world.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: daidalos on July 21, 2015, 03:28:19 AM
Putin is a thug, and like all thug dictators, is afraid of attack. It's just not an attack from without, but from within he'd better be worried about.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: kalash on August 02, 2015, 04:39:07 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
...when in truth, no one is threatening Russia?

Is this a joke or you completely ignorant on the topic?
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 02, 2015, 04:46:01 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 02, 2015, 04:39:07 AM
Is this a joke or you completely ignorant on the topic?

Please fill us in. Who is threatening Russia and it what way?
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: kalash on August 02, 2015, 05:32:42 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 02, 2015, 04:46:01 AM
Please fill us in. Who is threatening Russia and it what way?
Justify please, continuing existenсe of NATO and spreading of it toward Russian borders?
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: walkstall on August 02, 2015, 05:38:55 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 02, 2015, 05:32:42 AM
Justify please, continuing existenсe of NATO and spreading of it toward Russian borders?

:lol:  In this day and age the is not Justifying NATO.   It should be dismantled and the land sold to the highest bidder in the U.S. 
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 02, 2015, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 02, 2015, 05:32:42 AM
Justify please, continuing existenсe of NATO and spreading of it toward Russian borders?

NATO was formed to have an alliance against an aggressive Soviet Union designed to protect members. There is nothing about NATO that desires any problems with Russia if they behave. Why did the Baltic states want to join the NATO. They had already had an experience with Soviet occupation and did not like it. They chose to go to the west.

I answered your question. Now answer mine without another question. The big part of the question is WHY?
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 02, 2015, 06:33:19 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 02, 2015, 04:39:07 AM
Is this a joke or you completely ignorant on the topic?
Then you need to define threat, because normal people translate threat as one of a physical nature.
Are you saying the US is physically threatening Russia?

What would be the purpose? We killed of the USSR and never fired a single shot, and if we really wanted to, we could easily cripple Russia into collapse, but we don't, because most Americans harbor no ill will towards Russia, Hell, many of us respect Russians, we even let them immigrate here.

Show me proof that Russia is being threatened. Personally, I think you're on par with our foolish ignorant and gullible libs, you only believe the party line.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: kalash on August 03, 2015, 05:53:57 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2015, 06:33:19 AM
Then you need to define threat, because normal people translate threat as one of a physical nature.
Are you saying the US is physically threatening Russia?
Wouldn't be for Russia too late to react if US start getting "physical"?  Every country, especially great ones, had to  have means of protection. And buy the way, what is the size of US military budget? Isn't it like size of 8 or 10 countries, that follow the list behind US, combined? How many military bases have Russia next to US? Maybe Russia trying to  install "anti-Iran" missiles in Mexico?  It's dangerous games american administration playing in nuclear age...
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 03, 2015, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 03, 2015, 05:53:57 AM
Wouldn't be for Russia too late to react if US start getting "physical"?  Every country, especially great ones, had to  have means of protection. And buy the way, what is the size of US military budget? Isn't it like size of 8 or 10 countries, that follow the list behind US, combined? How many military bases have Russia next to US? Maybe Russia trying to  install "anti-Iran" missiles in Mexico?  It's dangerous games american administration playing in nuclear age...
There's no denying we have the most powerful Military in world history, but with that power comes great responsibility coupled with great restraint.
Like I said, if we wanted to attack Russia, there is nothing anyone could do and no one that could stop us, but as an American, we would not stand for an unprovoked attack against Russia.
Russia has nothing we want, not one damn thing, if they did, we'd have taken it back in the 80s.

What you see in America is a weak Marxist leader and Putin knows this and is taking advantage of the situation, as would most leaders looking to increase power.
Watch how things quickly change after we get rid of our child dictator. Stability will return to the world, economies will begin to stabilize and improve.

Like I said, with great power, come a great responsibility. Something American Conservatives take very seriously, while liberal socialists exploit at our and yours, and the rest of the world's expense.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 03, 2015, 06:41:49 AM
Quote from: kalash on August 03, 2015, 05:53:57 AM
Wouldn't be for Russia too late to react if US start getting "physical"?  Every country, especially great ones, had to  have means of protection. And buy the way, what is the size of US military budget? Isn't it like size of 8 or 10 countries, that follow the list behind US, combined? How many military bases have Russia next to US? Maybe Russia trying to  install "anti-Iran" missiles in Mexico?  It's dangerous games american administration playing in nuclear age...

Please try to understand that NATO was formed as an alliance to discourage the old Soviet Union from further aggressive expansion. That being said, when the SU broke up and the "cold war" ended the threat from Russia was diminished. Now Mr. Putin has gone back to the type indications he would like to "put the band back together" as was the SU. Therefore, The US is hopefully fulfilling its NATO obligations to protect member countries. The US has no desire for a conflict with Russia. We have our hands full with another enemy, radical Islam. Our current president is a fool, or something worse, and will not acknowledge our enemy. That does mean the enemy is not there. Your statement about Russian missiles in Mexico is a straw man argument. It is apples and oranges.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Mountainshield on August 05, 2015, 05:11:02 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 03, 2015, 06:41:49 AM
Please try to understand that NATO was formed as an alliance to discourage the old Soviet Union from further aggressive expansion. That being said, when the SU broke up and the "cold war" ended the threat from Russia was diminished. Now Mr. Putin has gone back to the type indications he would like to "put the band back together" as was the SU. Therefore, The US is hopefully fulfilling its NATO obligations to protect member countries. The US has no desire for a conflict with Russia. We have our hands full with another enemy, radical Islam. Our current president is a fool, or something worse, and will not acknowledge our enemy. That does mean the enemy is not there. Your statement about Russian missiles in Mexico is a straw man argument. It is apples and oranges.

Russia's true enemy is Radical Islam and China. Europe does not want to take anything from Russia, we just want to buy their natural resources, and they pretty much dictate the prices. Pretty foolish of Putin to antagonize Europe even if NATO is expanding. It is ironic but a new tsarist and traditional cultured Russia is a perfect member for NATO.

China wants Sibir, would not be surprised if their plan is to annex by colonization with Han Chinese illegal immigration all of Russia's eastern part. Problem is that where Russia have most of it's natural resources, resources they are also planning on saving for posterity. Radical Islam want global domination and Russia already have a problem with Islamist terrorist.

When Putin is replaced by a younger Non-USSR era dictator I think Russia will become a strong ally of the US and Europe if not part of NATO (or equivalent new future alliance) eventually. Problem with Putin and the old guard is they feel personally humiliated by the US for losing the cold war and the complete utter failure of Soviet Socialism.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 05, 2015, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 05, 2015, 05:11:02 AM
Russia's true enemy is Radical Islam and China. Europe does not want to take anything from Russia, we just want to buy their natural resources, and they pretty much dictate the prices. Pretty foolish of Putin to antagonize Europe even if NATO is expanding. It is ironic but a new tsarist and traditional cultured Russia is a perfect member for NATO.

China wants Sibir, would not be surprised if their plan is to annex by colonization with Han Chinese illegal immigration all of Russia's eastern part. Problem is that where Russia have most of it's natural resources, resources they are also planning on saving for posterity. Radical Islam want global domination and Russia already have a problem with Islamist terrorist.

When Putin is replaced by a younger Non-USSR era dictator I think Russia will become a strong ally of the US and Europe if not part of NATO (or equivalent new future alliance) eventually. Problem with Putin and the old guard is they feel personally humiliated by the US for losing the cold war and the complete utter failure of Soviet Socialism.

I think you make an excellent analysis about new leadership. I was in Russia a few years ago before Putin started his mischief. It seemed the younger generation was embracing capitalism and their new freedoms. There were signs that folks really wanted to be friends with the west. A new younger generation will not have the memories of the false strength of the old SU and will hopefully see the benefits of alliance with the west. We have a common enemy of radical Islam.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Mountainshield on August 05, 2015, 10:11:49 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 05, 2015, 05:30:54 AM
I think you make an excellent analysis about new leadership. I was in Russia a few years ago before Putin started his mischief. It seemed the younger generation was embracing capitalism and their new freedoms. There were signs that folks really wanted to be friends with the west. A new younger generation will not have the memories of the false strength of the old SU and will hopefully see the benefits of alliance with the west. We have a common enemy of radical Islam.

Yeah, I had similar experience in Russia. When I was there the main black marketplace in St.Petersburg there was playing Ramstein, a hardcore german metal band, people were selling western movies, games, music and porn. People were friendly and open, of course many were drunk as well  :tounge: But all in all I think you are completely right in that they want western lifestyle. The problem that Russia's young people have when interacting with the global community is lack of English comprehension, but that doesn't stop them from embracing our culture. Iran young people as well want to live western lifestyles as we saw in the green revolution, they don't want the islamist-marxist crap.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: milos on August 06, 2015, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 06:22:13 AM
There's no denying we have the most powerful Military in world history, but with that power comes great responsibility coupled with great restraint.
Like I said, if we wanted to attack Russia, there is nothing anyone could do and no one that could stop us, but as an American, we would not stand for an unprovoked attack against Russia.
Russia has nothing we want, not one damn thing, if they did, we'd have taken it back in the 80s.

What you see in America is a weak Marxist leader and Putin knows this and is taking advantage of the situation, as would most leaders looking to increase power.
Watch how things quickly change after we get rid of our child dictator. Stability will return to the world, economies will begin to stabilize and improve.

Like I said, with great power, come a great responsibility. Something American Conservatives take very seriously, while liberal socialists exploit at our and yours, and the rest of the world's expense.

Russia had been attacked twice in their recent history, once by Napoleon, and the other time by Hitler. So, they have that historical experience which warns them to be careful. For example, if your house was robbed twice, you would watch closely for possible robbers, and if someone suspicious is approaching your house, you would take your gun just in case, maybe even fire a warning shot. I believe that is the situation with Russia. They had been attacked twice, and now they see NATO approaching them, so they took their guns. Russia has intervened so far only where the Russian minority was attacked, like in Georgia and Ukraine. I am sure America would intervene too if some Americans were attacked anywhere in the world.

I truly hope you will elect a decent American patriot for the president. But, what if someone else wins? What if Hillary Clinton wins? Her administration would then have NATO infrastructure and forces on Russian borders in control. And you know well that Clinton wouldn't care for the interests of the American people. You, and any other decent American, would surely not attack Russia. But, Clinton's administration wouldn't be made of decent Americans. She is just a puppet of Wall Street's and FED's bankers, and they don't care for both American or Russian or any other people in the world. There the danger lays. We already had the case when the first Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 breaking all of the NATO principles. What if the second Clinton does the same to Russia?
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Mountainshield on August 06, 2015, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: milos on August 06, 2015, 12:22:57 AM
Russia had been attacked twice in their recent history, once by Napoleon, and the other time by Hitler. So, they have that historical experience which warns them to be careful. For example, if your house was robbed twice, you would watch closely for possible robbers, and if someone suspicious is approaching your house, you would take your gun just in case, maybe even fire a warning shot. I believe that is the situation with Russia. They had been attacked twice, and now they see NATO approaching them, so they took their guns. Russia has intervened so far only where the Russian minority was attacked, like in Georgia and Ukraine. I am sure America would intervene too if some Americans were attacked anywhere in the world.

I truly hope you will elect a decent American patriot for the president. But, what if someone else wins? What if Hillary Clinton wins? Her administration would then have NATO infrastructure and forces on Russian borders in control. And you know well that Clinton wouldn't care for the interests of the American people. You, and any other decent American, would surely not attack Russia. But, Clinton's administration wouldn't be made of decent Americans. She is just a puppet of Wall Street's and FED's bankers, and they don't care for both American or Russian or any other people in the world. There the danger lays. We already had the case when the first Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 breaking all of the NATO principles. What if the second Clinton does the same to Russia?

To be fair Russia attacked France through it's alliance with Austria after the Napoleonic factions executed Duke of Enghien. So Russia can't claim to never have invaded Europe, as they did try to invade France.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 06, 2015, 02:18:06 AM
Quote from: milos on August 06, 2015, 12:22:57 AM
Russia had been attacked twice in their recent history, once by Napoleon, and the other time by Hitler. So, they have that historical experience which warns them to be careful. For example, if your house was robbed twice, you would watch closely for possible robbers, and if someone suspicious is approaching your house, you would take your gun just in case, maybe even fire a warning shot. I believe that is the situation with Russia. They had been attacked twice, and now they see NATO approaching them, so they took their guns. Russia has intervened so far only where the Russian minority was attacked, like in Georgia and Ukraine. I am sure America would intervene too if some Americans were attacked anywhere in the world.

I truly hope you will elect a decent American patriot for the president. But, what if someone else wins? What if Hillary Clinton wins? Her administration would then have NATO infrastructure and forces on Russian borders in control. And you know well that Clinton wouldn't care for the interests of the American people. You, and any other decent American, would surely not attack Russia. But, Clinton's administration wouldn't be made of decent Americans. She is just a puppet of Wall Street's and FED's bankers, and they don't care for both American or Russian or any other people in the world. There the danger lays. We already had the case when the first Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 breaking all of the NATO principles. What if the second Clinton does the same to Russia?
Bull shit!
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: milos on August 07, 2015, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 06, 2015, 02:18:06 AM
Bull shit!

Ok, that is a fair answer.  :cool:

I was just trying to explain what Russians think, why they see NATO as another Napoleon, or another Hitler. Because I live close to Russia, and Ukraine, etc, and I believe I can understand them better. I don't want to advocate for nobody, Russia was an empire, so they have to bear their own cross. Mine position is always against imperialism of any kind.

You say NATO is a defensive alliance, and that is what it was meant to be, of course. But, in 1999, NATO acted like aggressor to my country of Yugoslavia, when we didn't attack any of the NATO countries, nor have we committed any act of terrorism in any of the NATO nations, and nothing similar to that. So, in 1999, NATO had proven it is not a defensive alliance anymore, but an aggressive one. And nobody can deny that fact. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. So, regarding NATO's aggressive act on Yugoslavia in 1999, any country in the world should be beware of NATO after that. Of course, the ones to be blamed are leftists like Blair and Clinton, but whoever runs NATO countries should follow NATO policies, and we have seen NATO policies were broken, and nobody was punished for that.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 07, 2015, 01:48:38 AM
Quote from: milos on August 07, 2015, 12:36:30 AM
Ok, that is a fair answer.  :cool:

I was just trying to explain what Russians think, why they see NATO as another Napoleon, or another Hitler. Because I live close to Russia, and Ukraine, etc, and I believe I can understand them better. I don't want to advocate for nobody, Russia was an empire, so they have to bear their own cross. Mine position is always against imperialism of any kind.

You say NATO is a defensive alliance, and that is what it was meant to be, of course. But, in 1999, NATO acted like aggressor to my country of Yugoslavia, when we didn't attack any of the NATO countries, nor have we committed any act of terrorism in any of the NATO nations, and nothing similar to that. So, in 1999, NATO had proven it is not a defensive alliance anymore, but an aggressive one. And nobody can deny that fact. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. So, regarding NATO's aggressive act on Yugoslavia in 1999, any country in the world should be beware of NATO after that. Of course, the ones to be blamed are leftists like Blair and Clinton, but whoever runs NATO countries should follow NATO policies, and we have seen NATO policies were broken, and nobody was punished for that.
:lol:
No it wasn't fair at all, but I didn't feel like expanding at the moment. :biggrin:

You're right about NATO attacking, but in all fairness, it was Klinton, a known Marxist supporter and apparently a Muscum apologist, so it really wasn't the US, it was a Marxist against Christians.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons on the promise that NATO would protect them from Russia, a promise we broke, so they should be given back their weapons in all fairness since Russia is now the aggressor.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 07, 2015, 06:06:53 AM
Quote from: milos on August 07, 2015, 12:36:30 AM
Ok, that is a fair answer.  :cool:

I was just trying to explain what Russians think, why they see NATO as another Napoleon, or another Hitler. Because I live close to Russia, and Ukraine, etc, and I believe I can understand them better. I don't want to advocate for nobody, Russia was an empire, so they have to bear their own cross. Mine position is always against imperialism of any kind.

You say NATO is a defensive alliance, and that is what it was meant to be, of course. But, in 1999, NATO acted like aggressor to my country of Yugoslavia, when we didn't attack any of the NATO countries, nor have we committed any act of terrorism in any of the NATO nations, and nothing similar to that. So, in 1999, NATO had proven it is not a defensive alliance anymore, but an aggressive one. And nobody can deny that fact. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. So, regarding NATO's aggressive act on Yugoslavia in 1999, any country in the world should be beware of NATO after that. Of course, the ones to be blamed are leftists like Blair and Clinton, but whoever runs NATO countries should follow NATO policies, and we have seen NATO policies were broken, and nobody was punished for that.

You make a good point concerning NATO's involvement in the Balkans in 1999. As Solar pointed out, this was primarily a Clinton scheme and at that point the USA was a leader so the other countries fell into place. It was also pre 9/11 so the American people actually yawned about this activity as a threat from radical Islam was not on most folks radar. We, as Americans, were hoodwinked. However, the history of NATO is defensive.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: milos on August 08, 2015, 12:42:49 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 07, 2015, 01:48:38 AM
:lol:
No it wasn't fair at all, but I didn't feel like expanding at the moment. :biggrin:

That is why I love the American temper. :cool:

Yes, both Russia and NATO had agreed to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine if it transfers its nuclear weapons to Russia. Now, we see both Russia and NATO are screwing Ukraine. And unfortunately, I must agree Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine now, since it took Crimea. To be honest, I have had much higher expectations from Vladimir Putin, I believed he was much smarter. But, you can't expect a wisdom from a communist, apparently. It seems that whatever happens, the force is his main solution to the problem. No diplomatic skills whatsoever. He will be easily driven into any war. He had no reasons to take Crimea, with that act he had ruined Russian relationships with Ukraine for decades. If Ukraine tries to take Crimea back, Russia will heavily respond, NATO will come to help Ukraine, and here we have the war between Russia and NATO. It's easy like that.

If we want to be pessimistic, we can predict three major global conflicts, in a matter of years. Islamic State will try to attack and destroy Israel. NATO and Russia will go to war against each other in Ukraine. And Muslim illegal immigrants will set Europe on fire.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 08, 2015, 02:37:13 AM
Quote from: milos on August 08, 2015, 12:42:49 AM
That is why I love the American temper. :cool:

Yes, both Russia and NATO had agreed to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine if it transfers its nuclear weapons to Russia. Now, we see both Russia and NATO are screwing Ukraine. And unfortunately, I must agree Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine now, since it took Crimea. To be honest, I have had much higher expectations from Vladimir Putin, I believed he was much smarter. But, you can't expect a wisdom from a communist, apparently. It seems that whatever happens, the force is his main solution to the problem. No diplomatic skills whatsoever. He will be easily driven into any war. He had no reasons to take Crimea, with that act he had ruined Russian relationships with Ukraine for decades. If Ukraine tries to take Crimea back, Russia will heavily respond, NATO will come to help Ukraine, and here we have the war between Russia and NATO. It's easy like that.

If we want to be pessimistic, we can predict three major global conflicts, in a matter of years. Islamic State will try to attack and destroy Israel. NATO and Russia will go to war against each other in Ukraine. And Muslim illegal immigrants will set Europe on fire.
It's why, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world contracts pneumonia.
We have no leadership in the WH, a stabilizing force in the world, what we have is a Marxist intentionally creating imbalance, chaos and all around discourse, intentionally.

Watch for things to change dramatically in 2017, when real leadership returns to the WH.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: daidalos on August 08, 2015, 03:55:12 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2015, 06:33:19 AM
Then you need to define threat, because normal people translate threat as one of a physical nature.
Are you saying the US is physically threatening Russia?

What would be the purpose? We killed of the USSR and never fired a single shot, and if we really wanted to, we could easily cripple Russia into collapse, but we don't, because most Americans harbor no ill will towards Russia, Hell, many of us respect Russians, we even let them immigrate here.

Show me proof that Russia is being threatened. Personally, I think you're on par with our foolish ignorant and gullible libs, you only believe the party line.
I wonder how much of this is about preserving Russia's ability to maintain, and control it's nuclear weapons.
There have been a few stories in the recent past, where we ourselves have had issues with these weapons systems. Particularly older one's, and well if WE have had issues, you know Russia is.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: supsalemgr on August 08, 2015, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: milos on August 08, 2015, 12:42:49 AM
That is why I love the American temper. :cool:

Yes, both Russia and NATO had agreed to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine if it transfers its nuclear weapons to Russia. Now, we see both Russia and NATO are screwing Ukraine. And unfortunately, I must agree Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine now, since it took Crimea. To be honest, I have had much higher expectations from Vladimir Putin, I believed he was much smarter. But, you can't expect a wisdom from a communist, apparently. It seems that whatever happens, the force is his main solution to the problem. No diplomatic skills whatsoever. He will be easily driven into any war. He had no reasons to take Crimea, with that act he had ruined Russian relationships with Ukraine for decades. If Ukraine tries to take Crimea back, Russia will heavily respond, NATO will come to help Ukraine, and here we have the war between Russia and NATO. It's easy like that.

If we want to be pessimistic, we can predict three major global conflicts, in a matter of years. Islamic State will try to attack and destroy Israel. NATO and Russia will go to war against each other in Ukraine. And Muslim illegal immigrants will set Europe on fire.

In my view Putin is on the edge of irrationality concerning his alliance with Iran. Radical Islam is just as much an enemy of Russia as it is the USA and the West. I use the term irrational as it seems his desire to reconstruct the old SU has negatively influenced his judgement conerning radical Islam and their hatred of Russia.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: kalash on August 08, 2015, 04:46:17 AM
Quote from: milos on August 08, 2015, 12:42:49 AM
To be honest, I have had much higher expectations from Vladimir Putin, I believed he was much smarter. But, you can't expect a wisdom from a communist, apparently.
First, Putin is still much smarter then his counterparts in the West. Second, Crimea is and was russian land, and only by the idiocy of Khruschev became part of Ukrainian soviet republic. Third, population of Crimea by overwhelming majority voted for joining to Russia (Kosovo!) after right wing nationalists seized power in Kiev. Fourth, you can expect wisdom from communists, just remember Lenin and Stalin - you like them or not, but you can not call them stupid.
And last, Putin is not a communist, for sure.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: milos on August 08, 2015, 05:54:27 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 08, 2015, 04:41:02 AM
In my view Putin is on the edge of irrationality concerning his alliance with Iran. Radical Islam is just as much an enemy of Russia as it is the USA and the West. I use the term irrational as it seems his desire to reconstruct the old SU has negatively influenced his judgement conerning radical Islam and their hatred of Russia.

Putin believes he can keep Russian Muslims at peace with the Russians, and he is doing that job fine at the moment. But, you never know what the future will bring. There are 2 million Muslims in Moscow, who make about 20% of it's citizens, which is just terrifying. What if these 2 million Moscow Muslims decide to rebel? There will be rivers of blood running the Moscow streets. It is a huge blackmail to Russia.

Quote from: kalash on August 08, 2015, 04:46:17 AM
First, Putin is still much smarter then his counterparts in the West. Second, Crimea is and was russian land, and only by the idiocy of Khruschev became part of Ukrainian soviet republic. Third, population of Crimea by overwhelming majority voted for joining to Russia (Kosovo!) after right wing nationalists seized power in Kiev. Fourth, you can expect wisdom from communists, just remember Lenin and Stalin - you like them or not, but you can not call them stupid.
And last, Putin is not a communist, for sure.

Putin is definitely much smarter than Obama. But, is he smart enough? I believe taking Crimea was a huge mistake. Putin has just created a new hot spot, a new source for crisis. It's true that Crimea was originally part of the Russian SFSR, and that Khrushchev, who was Ukrainian, had simply gifted Crimea to Ukraine. But, this was not the right time for solving that issue. And, with comparing Crimea to Kosovo, Putin has slapped us into face. He basically said that the separation of Kosovo was legal just as the separation of Crimea was legal. But we strongly stand at the position that Kosovo separation was illegal. Russia has screwed us again, and now Putin wants me to support him. I mean, I will surely not support Ukrainians, who are mostly pro-EU liberal scum, with some fascists, but how can Russia expect support from me, and to screw me at the same time? There are some international laws to be respected, as well as the constitutions of the sovereign countries.

I have some respect for Stalin, although he was a mass murderer, he was at least a Russian nationalist, and eventually a counter-revolutionary, he had wiped out Leninists and Trotskyists. But Lenin, come on. The worst anti-Russian, and anti-human swine of all times, alongside with Trotsky. They were surely not stupid, they knew exactly how to destroy Russia in the smartest way. Putin puzzles me, whether he's a conservative disguised as a communist, or a communist disguised as a conservative. He is mixing communism, patriotism, and Christianity all together, which looks like a mess.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: red_dirt on August 17, 2015, 02:36:47 AM
http://sputniknews.com/us/20150817/1025823354.html

US General says Obama has destroyed US Army.
Title: Re: "Army 2015"
Post by: Solar on August 17, 2015, 03:19:45 AM
Quote from: red_dirt on August 17, 2015, 02:36:47 AM
http://sputniknews.com/us/20150817/1025823354.html

US General says Obama has destroyed US Army.
Can't Court Martial him, but he can expect an audit for telling the truth :cursing:.