Putin ups the game.
#1
Posted 04 June 2007 - 08:51 PM
Nato condemns Putin missile vow
basically, Putin is nationalizing Russia, causing new friction between Russia and the West. as the articles from BBC says, this is a counter to the neo-conservative politics of president Bush, and it really makes me sad so see that Bush has made the world a much more unsafe place with his politics.
if we are lucky, Putin will step down around the same time as Bush does, and most likely the US politics will get back into something more acceptable style. but Putin practically decides who will be the next president if he doesnt manage to change the rules so that he can be president for another 40 years. would this have happened if it wasnt for bush? it might have, but it certainly have given Putin the chance to do as he is doing right now.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#2
Posted 04 June 2007 - 09:35 PM
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#3
Posted 04 June 2007 - 09:56 PM
Russia's just playing the Old Russian Bear, fearsome on the outside by weary and in need of hibernation inside.
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#4
Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:40 AM
I can't see any logic in Putin.
Why would he be so pissed off?
Is it because he would like to have a balance of power as in all have nuke-capabilities...?
US/EU has nukes, but if it can't be hit by nukes its obvious that the power swings... could this be why Putin is becoming so enraged?
Lurking moar since 2004 2003!
#5
Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:22 AM
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#6
Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:37 AM
But in other news, what the hell? I mean, seriously. Why's he pointing missiles at Europe in the first place? Point them at the bloody US. I mean, I understand the need to preserve one's power and ego but at the same time, I fail to see what purpose that serves other than to turn everyone against you. There is no legitimate justification for aiming missiles at Europe.
#8
Posted 05 June 2007 - 05:48 PM
You can't build a missile shield against Russia. I don't understand why they're afraid.
You might be able to shoot down one missle, but not advanced missles/MIRVS.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#9
Posted 05 June 2007 - 06:34 PM
I feel a possible Cold War 2 coming or something big between the US and Russia at least, but that's just me .
Edited by Soul, 05 June 2007 - 06:35 PM.
Soul 2.4
Background process. Has something to do with some activity going on somewhere. Sorting junkmail, I think. No value or interest. Doesn't do much except hog resource.
#10
Posted 06 June 2007 - 01:35 AM
Quoted from a Bush speech from PRAGUE, Czech Republic.Bush urged Russian cooperation with U.S. efforts to build a weapons system that would help "safeguard free nations against a missile attack launched from a rogue regime," inviting Putin to send military personnel and scientists to learn about the system.
"My message will be, Vladimir -- I call him Vladimir -- that you shouldn't fear a missile defense system," Bush said.
"As a matter of fact, why don't you cooperate with us ... Please send your generals over to see how such a system would work. Send your scientists. Let us have the ability to discuss this issue in an open forum."
"We'll be completely transparent," he added.
While the U.S. relationship with Russia is complex, Bush said the countries could work together to deal with mutual threats.
If we're willing to share the tech, than what's the issue? What are the Russians pissed off about if we are trying to include them in a worldwide net of missile detection and inteception? Simply because they didn't think of it first?
It's like when china and russia abstain/veto everytime from anything voted on in the permanant UN security council. Just to let the world know whatever it is, they don't agree with the US. Vote if the "sky is blue" they'll abstain or veto.
And it makes me laugh when I read "Russia will now target thier missiles at european targets." Where the hell else would they be targeted at besides the US?
They might be targeted at no one presently, "on the line", but I'm sure a button click away to reload those "old targeting sequences."
Stupid political rhetoric....
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#11
Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:23 AM
His coffers are full of fuel and gas money at the moment so he feels he can get away with his little chest banging. What he should be worried about is not a US missile shield (with unproven technology, and too small to stop Russia remaining arsenal) but his economy's dependance on selling it's energy reserves, Russia's rising violence and nationalism and it's low life expectancy (lowest in the "developped" world).
He would do well to think a little bit ahead, say towards 20 or 30 years from now, when Russia will be out of gas reserves and surrounded by disgruntled neighbours it tried to bully by cutting off their heating in the dead of winter it will have a harder time to muscle it's way into their business after that, and I doubt many will feel much sympathy.
Edited by wilmet, 06 June 2007 - 07:30 AM.
"I'm not retreating, I'm just fighting in another direction" (anonymous US corporal, Korea)
work is sacred...so don't go near it.
#12
Posted 06 June 2007 - 05:38 PM
Pointing nuclear missiles at Europe is more of a symbolic thing, I can't imagine it takes long to change a missiles destination. It was only sent to worry the countries that don't have nukes. Russian missiles if destined for the States wouldn't even fly over Europe, more likely over the North Pole.
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#13
Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:44 PM
It's pointless either way. Point them Alaska's way from the Russian side of the Bering Strait.
But if Russia goes at us or the US, whoever they didn't target would begin nuclearising Russia.
Either way, Bush is even sharing the tech so what's the issue? I must say that this is perhaps one of the most sensible (Lucid?) moments of Bush's conducting of foreign affairs.
Edited by Paradox, 06 June 2007 - 07:44 PM.
#14
Posted 06 June 2007 - 09:28 PM
I think a nation with 16,000 nuclear warheads is very much on the world political stage.
How many of those are still usable after a decade and a half of chronic underfunding? Not that it matters as they will never be used...
And Russia's gas reserves are more than twenty years, at least double that which is why so much infrastructure and investment is being sent in to explore the gas fields.
I'll try to dig up that story I read about it being less rosy than it seems (something about them not being able to maintain current production levels). At any rate, they're puting all their eggs in one basket with oil and gas.
Either way, Bush is even sharing the tech so what's the issue? I must say that this is perhaps one of the most sensible (Lucid?) moments of Bush's conducting of foreign affairs.
It good soundbite for the home crowd I guess. Pissing off the yankees. I think though that they're just not happy about America setting up shop on Russia's turf. They consider eastern europe to be "theirs" and don't take too kindly to the west and NATO creeping up close and closer.
"I'm not retreating, I'm just fighting in another direction" (anonymous US corporal, Korea)
work is sacred...so don't go near it.
#15
Posted 06 June 2007 - 09:37 PM
Ali, do you have anything useful to contribute to this forum at all?
But in other news, what the hell? I mean, seriously. Why's he pointing missiles at Europe in the first place? Point them at the bloody US. I mean, I understand the need to preserve one's power and ego but at the same time, I fail to see what purpose that serves other than to turn everyone against you. There is no legitimate justification for aiming missiles at Europe.
But then, you forget that it is Russian politics as usual.
#16
Posted 07 June 2007 - 02:30 AM
It good soundbite for the home crowd I guess. Pissing off the yankees. I think though that they're just not happy about America setting up shop on Russia's turf. They consider eastern europe to be "theirs" and don't take too kindly to the west and NATO creeping up close and closer.
What's really ridiculous is that the part of the US missile shield in Alaska is already in place, and that is just as much on Russia's doorstep as Eastern Europe it, but they don't care about that because Alaska is not a former Soviet colony.
#17
Posted 07 June 2007 - 03:22 AM
For $25 million if I remember correctly...
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#18
Posted 07 June 2007 - 06:56 AM
Plus the fact of sharing the tech should be acceptable compromise.
EAApoc wrote:
The only written law in a C&C game I ever saw is please Mr.Developer make it fun and give me a lot of **** to explode, o and don't you ever get another soul to play Kane but Joe Kucan. Aside from those two rules, all bets are off =) hehe
-APOC
#19
Posted 07 June 2007 - 07:26 AM
for almost $20 million less. they sold it for $7.2 million in 1867 and in the 1890s we found gold and we likely got all of that $7.2 million backActually Russia did used to own Alaska and sold it to the US.
For $25 million if I remember correctly...
Wikipedia is fun
#20
Posted 07 June 2007 - 09:59 AM
I think a nation with 16,000 nuclear warheads is very much on the world political stage.
How many of those are still usable after a decade and a half of chronic underfunding? Not that it matters as they will never be used...And Russia's gas reserves are more than twenty years, at least double that which is why so much infrastructure and investment is being sent in to explore the gas fields.
I'll try to dig up that story I read about it being less rosy than it seems (something about them not being able to maintain current production levels). At any rate, they're puting all their eggs in one basket with oil and gas.Either way, Bush is even sharing the tech so what's the issue? I must say that this is perhaps one of the most sensible (Lucid?) moments of Bush's conducting of foreign affairs.
It good soundbite for the home crowd I guess. Pissing off the yankees. I think though that they're just not happy about America setting up shop on Russia's turf. They consider eastern europe to be "theirs" and don't take too kindly to the west and NATO creeping up close and closer.
Nuclear warheads can survive for long periods of time, the Russians build theirs to stand the most extreme conditions of heat, cold, salinity and humidity for all the varying climates in the USSR. Russia will be able to survive economically even with 20 years of gas, they can just sell their nuclear knowledge to various undesirables and oligarks keep buying up football clubs in Europe everyone will be happy. Basically if Russia continues its stance the rest of Europe excluding the UK and France is fucked as they lack the power to threaten Europe because they were too involved in peaceniking to build weapon programmes of their own.
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users