Russia plans nuclear wargame - Page 4

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:26

btw, which liberal democracies did not do something to counter the Red Menace? I'm sure the Soviets and PRC had equally good terms for the 'weak willed West'.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
NYE, I think you're delluding yourself if you think it was.

I'm positive you don't have a freekin clue what you are talking about. So we can call it even.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:30

If that suits you, sure. I don't expect you to change your opinion, I'm pretty sure it's too late for that.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:33

You are sure about a lot of things, patty cakes, but living through the Cold War as a citizen of a liberal democracy is something you lack first hand experience with. So why don't you save it for your analyst?

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:34

Falling back on sentimentality makes poor science NYE

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:36

Also FYI There are many places in the world that are in more dire geopolitical situations (and hence closer to what's really "going down") than Canada. I'm sure it must have been hard there, no doubt.. sure

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:36

Science according to patty cakes. This should be good.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:38

I'm just a conduit!

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:50

Anyway at least you got an answer to the question you were asking Vagabond. Wether your mind accepts it or not it's your issue.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:55

No, I am still waiting.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:56

I asked him specifically, not you, Patty Cakes.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
btw, which liberal democracies did not do something to counter the Red Menace? I'm sure the Soviets and PRC had equally good terms for the 'weak willed West'.

I just saw that too.

Couple of things about it.

1st. It's a question of who actually did what. Not everyone did the same or the same scale of despicable schemes. Everyone has a choice and everyone exercised it.

2nd. Which choice becomes apparent when you realize that many of the things that some liberal democracies did were not for survival but for interests. And those same entities will continue to practice the same since survival was in many cases used as a pretext.
Hence very few things have actually changed because they never were what you were led to believe in the first place.

To cut a long story short, you can't convince another one that what they're seeing is not an elephant. Interests were to a large degree the driving force. And interests remain.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:59

Again, my dense friend, survival was the over-riding interest.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, I am still waiting.

Then you're not paying much attention

The Vagabond · February 7, 2004, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You didn't answer the real question though. Who is threatening Russia, and why do Russians feel threatened?

I am genuinely curious.

NYE, we should distingush between a 'threat' and an 'immediate threat' here. There are no immediate threats to Russia right now, except for islamic militants. But this is largely because the country remains strong. Much weaker than she used to be, but still strong enough.

However, there is a whole bunch of threats on a smaller scale, which should be addressed. For example, consider the quest for influence in the former Soviet republics. The more western puppet regimes are installed there, the weaker Russia becomes. Leaving smaller threats unresolved little by little leads to more serious threats.

In a whole 'big game' which is under way, Russia has retreated to its backyard -- to the former Soviet republics, but not yet to the Russian territory itself (well, perhaps, except for Chechnya). Should this happened, it would be already an immediate threat.

So, basically, it's a real threat of bigger threats.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, I am still waiting.

Ok, NYE, if you don't like my explanation, I can give another version for you.
No one is threatening Russia, there is no even remote sign of such threat and we don't feel threatened. But because our pure evilness, we are planning to destroy the whole world.
And btw, the Canada is number one in our list.

How do you like this version?

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 03:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Again, my dense friend, survival was the over-riding interest.

Hardly, hardly.
If thinking is not enough for you to figure this very simply fact out maybe witnessing today's interests as they keep going the same way they did back then, would conveince you. But as I said, I'm pretty sure your entire system of beliefs would collapse if you'd accept this, and I wouldn't wish that for you NYE

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond

NYE, we should distingush between a 'threat' and an 'immediate threat' here. There are no immediate threats to Russia right now, except for islamic militants. But this is largely because the country remains strong. Much weaker than she used to be, but still strong enough.

However, there is a whole bunch of threats on a smaller scale, which should be addressed. For example, consider the quest for influence in the former Soviet republics. The more western puppet regimes are installed there, the weaker Russia becomes. Leaving smaller threats unresolved little by little leads to more serious threats.

In a whole 'big game' which is under way, Russia has retreated to its backyard -- to the former Soviet republics, but not yet to the Russian territory itself (well, perhaps, except for Chechnya). Should this happened, it would be already an immediate threat.

So, basically, it's a real threat of bigger threats.

So, the impression is that your influence in the former Soviet republics is being poached? Do I have that right?

By the Americans?

Do the Americans have more influence in any former Republics than Russia does? If they do, why?

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 03:07

Clueless.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

Hardly, hardly.
If thinking is not enough for you to figure this very simply fact out maybe witnessing today's interests as they keep going the same way they did back then, would conveince you. But as I said, I'm pretty sure your entire system of beliefs would collapse if you'd accept this, and I wouldn't wish that for you NYE

You think the world carves up the same way today as it did in 1985? Curious.

I'm sure you could give lessons on rigid beliefs that defy change based on facts that are inconvenient.

The fact that's today's interests don't run the same way they used to might give you a clue, but perhaps you will still have to rent one.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 03:11

They do have some very striking similarities. To a large extend they function the same. And funnily enough the goals remain the same too...

Serb · February 7, 2004, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do the Americans have more influence in any former Republics than Russia does?

Baltic States.
American military bases in Asian former Soviet republics.

Quote:

If they do, why?

Because they are f*ckers.

Yanks surrounded Russia with the military alliance of 19 countries, installed their military bases around our border, and now you're whining when we blow the dust from our nuclear club?

The message is clear and you should remember it- try something and you're toasts, all of you.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 03:12

'They'? 'The goal'?

WTF are you babbling about, Patty Cakes?

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 03:14

Oh must I spell it all out for you NYE?
Like all the "west" want is peace and harmony.
Might as well go to play basketball, I'm sure the guy who collects the shirts has more geopolitical sense than you my friend.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 03:16

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 03:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
Because they are f*ckers.

That's the best explanation so far

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 03:23

You assume a monolithic West, Patty Cakes. I don't. Recent events make you the fool.

What did happen though, is that up till the end of the Cold War, most all (if not every single one) liberal democracies did follow the same goal, that being the survival of our way of life. Funny how us rats all shared the same life boat til we got to dry land. btw, that did not involve peace and harmony. On the contrary, it involved a lot of blood, some of it ours.

Now, can you be done with your moronic pronouncements that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has said?

The Vagabond · February 7, 2004, 03:28

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, the impression is that your influence in the former Soviet republics is being poached? Do I have that right?

Yes. But this is just one example of a threat.

Quote:

By the Americans?

Mainly so, but also by the West as a whole. The EU is also getting taste for it.

Quote:

Do the Americans have more influence in any former Republics than Russia does? If they do, why?

I wouldn't say they have more influence. Perhaps it is only in Georgia that they have bigger political clout, where they've just installed a puppet government. Nonetheless, economically, Russia still has more influence even in Georgia, only that the new Georgian government doesn't seem (and doesn't want) to realize it yet, and Russia is too kind to remind it to them in full.

Anyway, it's not that the Americans have currently more influence, it's that they have enough influence to seriously damage Russian interests over there. It's also the dynamics. We are now on the verge of the battle of Ukraine. Who becomes the president is of vital importance.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 03:31

The Russians and the Americans have a say in who becomes the President of the Ukraine?

Serb · February 7, 2004, 03:35

More shocking news for NYE:
The Earth is round
2x2=4
F=mg