Cold War

But there is a world of difference between "NATO is all about attacking russia" and "a defensive pact can preempt , under some pretexts , in time of tensions"

I agree with the second point, but the first is just wrong.

And yes, Russia was hugely paranoid about NATO, and probably assumed that it was designed to attack them - and historically they have good reason to think so. But perceptions and potential misuse of a treaty are not the same as the actual terms of a treaty.

And could you please explain "the expansion of NATO is a military fact"
Do you mean all the new Eastern European countries who are joining, or do you mean a military expansion?

 

humm " the expansion of NATO is a military fact "

hypothetical , you are a russian general on the traditional danger front ,
the west
in 89 your foward line in on the elbe
in 91 it's on the oder ,
in 94 it's in bielorussia ,
in 97 it's within artillery range of leningrad
all the security buffer gone .
russians thinks
The traditional trade of space for time is all gone up , further ,such an
military alliance advance, with more consideration for the feelings of
estonia rather than the feeling of russia is holding russian interest in
contempt.
the further talk of expantion to georgia and god forbid Ukraine would
seriously stir national pride .
it would be the proof positive of evil intend by NATO

 

Ah, again you mean from the Russian / CIS viewpoint.

Maybe they do think that - but perhaps they should be wondering why all the states that broke away from the ex-CCCP were so eager to join NATO...
Their answer will probably be 'to invade us', but hey. :roll:

 

yes from the russian view point !

half of the population think russia ,mostly the young
the older half think Covietsky Coyous Cosialistichevsky Respoublics
nobody thinks C.S.I.
and yes they know than they are hated by all and don't have one sure
friend in the world . but hey they are realist about being a power .

 

I don't think any Russian thinks half in Cyrillic and half in Latin.

Yes, but at what level? They are a decaying power that has played the game above its league for decades and must now pay the price.

 

Yes - they are rapidly becoming a non-power.

Their army and airforce still has some top-notch equipment, but by and large the quality of the personnel is not so good (or maybe just their morale) - take a look at their performance in Chechnya (sp?)

As to their navy... outdated suface ships, submarines that sink too well...

And questions are asked as to whether their nuclear force can actually launch.

 

during manoeuvres in 2004 , Putin was invited aboard the
"peter the great" to observe the might of the northern fleet , culminating
in the lauch of two anti ship missiles , both lauch were duds
He probably concluded than his generals were wankers ,
and took an accomodating position on subject of friction with the west
an increase in the missile forces took place and he specifically
mentionned the deployment of the topor "axe " class of intercontinental
missile , he probably knows than he doesn't have much else .


P.S faithful to a didactic instinct , I tried to make clear to some
of my redneck brother how U.S.S.R and C.C.C.P. relate
,two years in northern russia got to be good for something.

 

are russian icbm,s still a threat to the west,can they still be made to launch and strike?

 

yup

the russians still have a fair number of warheads and delivery systems and at least a few should work so yes they are still a threat. not to mention the very real possibility of some rogue selling the odd warhead or the makings to somebody that we would really prefer not to have them

 

actually , the russians think the west is still a threat an the only peace
guaranty is their own missiles , last count about 800 warheads

 

why in gods name would anyone invade russia..its too huge and screwed up for even the russians to manage,and they live there..napoleon and hitler invaded only to have their great armies swallowed up and destroyed , if one did succesfully invade and conquer russia then what would u have...?

 

I known ! it's like mount everest because it's there
for the average russian it's because they are a magnet to suffering
some kind of christ of nations :roll: trial and tribulations sort of thing ,

 

You're forgetting the Swedes in 1709, who met a similar fate.

Mostly these armies entered Russia not to conquer her but to defeat her armies and topple her government (or make it powerless). The Russians then used the vastness of their country to their advantage, resulting in the campaigns we know.

 

and the poles ,
during the euphemisticaly named , the time of troubles


what always surprised me was the good nature of the average russian ,
they don't seems to hold grudge much
they can be incredibly brutal , but that's the way they treat each others
I don't know why :roll:

 

two generations ago many russians lived in huts with dirt floors sans water ,power,roads ect...bring the pigs and cows inside to help heat the house in winter...disputes settled with axes and vodka..as it was under peter the great...many russian troops had never seen a toilet or a lite bulb until they entered berlin....not much unlike henrys longbowmen at agincourt...the russians could prolly outdrink the yeomen though i think...longbow has better range than burp gun ,but not mossin nagnant

 

two generation ago ( pre- WW1 ? ) russia was seen as the big business
oportunity for the europeen banks , a lot of money poured into it from the
west , the putilov automotive factories in petersburg were made by renault
the oil field of baku were developed by the nobel familly concern .
railways stock were flogged to investors , the place was what china is now

the local intelectuals would comment on the chasm between the large
modern cities and the backward countryside full of superstition .
The intellectuals were wrong as usual :roll:
countrylife wasn't that bad , but since the peasants didn't write much
and the precious cityfolk wanted to "reform and improve" them , the
writing was self serving one sided , it was the city intelectuals who
invented bolchevism and agricultural reform ,
all to improve and reform
:-?
.
the peasants pay the price of some city folk social fantasies
.
.

 

40 years ago????? 1966????

 

jeag,i suspect that the men who think and post here{are there no women?}..had we lived a century ago ,would be rabble rousing intelectuals,we witness firsthand the life of the factory hand or peasant serf,coal miner..ect.short ,hard and brutish...we would demand social change....hindsite allows us to see that forced collectivisation is mabey not such a good idea....i sympathize with marx and engels ,a noble and costly social experiment...what is astounding is that it is still defended and preached by some today.

 

.hindsite allows us to see that forced collectivisation is mabey not such a good idea....i sympathize with marx and engels ,a noble and costly social experiment...what is astounding is that it is still defended and preached by some today.
.
.
.
.

halleluia brother , it's fair to want to do good ,
but the road to hell is paved with good theories
to erre once is fair enought , to keep doing it is dodgy ,
trice is blind stupid evil .
the sad thing is that the people who actually get the
drastic reform in motion are often the next ones to be liquidated

:roll:

 

Life in the countryside was in fact pretty miserable at the time, mostly thanks to Nicholas I's abolition of serfdom. Before this it had been miserable and the reforms came with such regulations and new measures that it did not improve the life of the serfs at all. However, it was a living; people at least owned some of their own fields and cattle (the rest was immediately collectivized into village councils, this was in 1867). Threatened with complete collectivization in the 1920s, most Russian farmers killed their own cattle rather than see it disappear into the hands of the collective.