Why Russia Is Angry

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Toosh 2/23/2012 8:26:33 AM

Putin and his minions are both stupid and preoccupied with their hate of the US. They're consumed with resentment over the Soviet collapse and are more than willing to let that interfere with what's best for Russia in the long term. When China eventually turns on them for land and resources in eastern Russia there will be a whaling and gnashing of teeth in Russia that will rival that of June 1941. Too bad Putin won't be around then. He and his goons should suffer the fate their poor judgement deserves. Russia just keeps repeating their mistakes.

Quote Reply

Knjaz 2/23/2012 9:40:36 AM

I'd say it's about spheres of influence, allies and all that BS we saw in Libya. Russia lost lots of money on that war as well (we wrote of Gaddafi's debts in exchange for weapon deals) , but didn't try to defend Gaddafi. Guess, it was a very wise decision, since, first of all, he wasn't an ally of ours, but most importantly now it's so, SO much easier to defend Syria after West once again showed what it's capable off and what these "peaceful protestors" and "democratic opposition" can turn a country into.

Quote Reply

Gerry 2/23/2012 11:41:08 PM

I agree, Lybia is now a country of independent militias.

There is still at least a 50/50 chance of Assad coming out on top, in Syria, perhaps more, while the world watches. Russia would stand to gain much from such an outcome and would improve its sale of weapons as well.

Many countries need modern high tech weapons that are not associated with human rights or political correctness. Russia in this case, as well as China are being more pragmatic in their appoach.

Quote Reply

dogberry 2/24/2012 1:43:35 AM

How much of that $80 billion was Russia actually getting paid for?

Quote Reply

Lance Blade 2/24/2012 6:59:45 AM

Russia benefited very well from the Libyan campaign. Oil prices skyrocketed, helping plug the budget deficit, and after NATO ripped up the Libyan war machine there is a very real chance for more weapons deals, like in Iraq. Regardless of what the NTC say about Russia and China, they need weapons, and the Libyan military is most used to Soviet designs. It also gave Russia carte blanche to whine about how evil imperialists were bombing a sovereign country, as if they didn't know what would happen when they gave the green light at UNSC.

Syria has a Russian base on it, so Russia will defend Assad in the same way the US defended the king of Bahrain. Sad but true. National interests come before ideology. What's annoying is that it didn't have to be this way. Russia could have simply negotiated a deal with whoever to keep the base in exchange for UNSC backing of the opposition. Now they'll likely lose everything.

Quote Reply

Toryu88 Paper Bear 2/24/2012 9:39:39 AM

I recently read a book called DeathRide: Hitler vs Stalin The East Front 1941-1945. The author Mosier is an academic who has made a career out of goring sacred cows amongst other historians. His books The Myth of the Great War, and The Blitzkrieg Myth challenge what most historians take as dogma. He does the same in DeathRide. His thesis is that the Red Army did not win the war in the east single handedly, but that it was a near run thing, and only aid by the West, the opening of the Air War over Europe, and the N. African, Mediteranean and Western fronts helped Stalin hold the line against Hitler by forcing him to bleed off the majority of his elite units comprising the greatest part of his armored combat power to other theaters. He submits that our history of the OstFront was written by Stalin, who turned draws and withdrawls (such as Kursk) into victories, and buried true defeats. He uses the monthly casualty figures from both sides to support this and to show that the Soviets were being bled white due to incompetence and failure to grasp the tenents of modern armored warfare. He disputes that Chekov and Zukhov were as good as history says they were, but rather they were butchers who simply carried out Stalin's orders of incessent attack no matter what the cost, and ran up a butcher's bill of 27 million dead Ivans. The connection to the article is that it is concievable that the Soviet Bear has never been as capable and as threatening as the West has made it out to be. It was large, true, but it appears to be as incompetent an impotent now, as it was in 1939 - 1945.

Mosier gives compelling evidence that most of what we believe about the Eastern Front was a fabrication of the Soviet Propaganda mill. Production figures were never as high as the Regime stated, and reliance on western arms was far greater than admitted and far more important in making up the Soviet shortfalls in all categories.

Look at how successful Soviet client states have been using Soviet doctrine and weapons since WWII against forces usually smaller, and probably no better than the Wehrmacht, and certainly not the equal of its elite units. The Arabs against Israel come to mind, granted they had some success in the October War, but only at first. The Soviets themselves against the Mujahedin, the Iraqis against Iran, the Iraq against the US, twice. I am beginning to believe the Soviets were never much of a threat, in reality. Mosier posits that the Soviet Union never recovered from WWII but lingered on mortally wounded for another 50 years until it succumbed to gangrene rot. It appears that even the rump state: the Russian Federation is rotting from within.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 2/24/2012 2:54:26 PM

Not sure about those comparisons. In WWII Germany and Russia had a pair of military ignoramuses’ making the strategic and even tactical decisions, though only Stalin would purge the military command at the drop of a hat. The various arab states, particularly Iran and Iraq have behaved much like the USSR. The western Allies (USA & UK) and Israel did not have those problems, and that was a huge advantage.

And don’t fool yourself. The USSR may not have been as big a threat as was claimed in some circles, but it was up until the mid 1980’s an extremely serious threat to western Europe. Russia still is formidable, though far less than the USSR, they have just slipped from 2nd to 3rd place as a world power.

Quote Reply

Zupdood whaling? 2/26/2012 4:35:48 AM

re: ...whaling and gnashing of teeth...(snip)

whaling = Captain Ahab vs. Moby

wailing = you, about now

Quote Reply

LB 2/27/2012 4:35:11 AM

The problem with stating lend lease and Western actions were crucial to Soviet victory in WWII is that it's clearly false. Germany lost by the end of the 1st winter when they lost 1 million casualties and never recovered. The next year instead of attacking across the whole front they attacked with just Army Group South ending with Stalingrad which was won before lend lease, bombing or any allied action impacted the war significantly.

Now if one wants to argue that lend lease was important in certain areas and helped speed the war along fine. To state the war in the ETO wasn't mostly about the Eastern Front is however totally false. Frankly I couldn't get through one of Mosier's texts as it was filled with too many errors and false conclusions. To cite one example on page 78 of "The Blitzkrieg Myth" he states how poorly the German economy was prepared for war and his note sites Speer. Speer's book is totally unreliable and this itself is a myth as Adam Tooze in "Wages of Destruction" proves beyond any doubt whatsoever.

To cite another issue on page 56 he states that the 3 man turret did not hold any meaningful superiority over a 1 or 2 man turret. The man clearly has no idea what he's talking about and his conclusion has no citation but merely is some guess on the part of someone with no clue how tanks operate. My comment in margin says "moron". Even worse on page 158 he states Rommel had been trained to pay close attention to logistics which is so totally ridiculous it's scary given Rommel was an amateur in terms of logistics and was nearly clueless and relied utterly on his staff; moreover, there's no citation for his false claim which he simply pulls out of thin air without foundation. Frankly I'd read him at you peril.

I'd suggest reading "Brute Force" by John Ellis. His statistical analysis on WWII is in almost every library I've seen. If you like economic analysis try the above text by Tooze.

Quote Reply

rimos 2/27/2012 11:38:22 AM

hello

I haven't read that book, but I do not agree with the statements. With some yes, but majority is false as was Stalin's history editing (which he has done). In fact, he manipulated the Soviet loss so much, that first official numbers of Soviet loses were around 7 millions. After his death, true values came to light, but it exact numbers will never be known. Sadly.

Germans were bleeded by USSR and not by the West.

North Africa, Italy or Western European fronts were just side shows in WW2 - European theater and not vise versa as culd be understood from this post. Elite units were smashed multiple times in East (of course inflicting huge damage in the process) and were send to the west to regroup, retrain and send back to the East.

3/4 of losses which Germans suffered during the war were at the East, which is logical, becasue the amount of soliders in the East was alway much higer (multiple times) compering to the Western front. Even in Balkans, there were more German soldiers (toward end of the war) then in W Germay or Low Countries.

Now, about Lend-Lease program.

50% of all supplies which came to USSR came through Pacific, and after December 1941 only non-military equipment could be send (on Soviet ships), as US and Japan were at war since then.

1/4 of supplies came through Iran (Persia), but this didn't start before August 1942, when German operation Fall Blau (Case Blue) was already in full swing.

The rest 1/4 of supplies came through northern route, where in 1941 in part of 1942 only Arkhangelsk could be used (railway Murmansk - Leningrad was blocked by Finnish troops. Because Arhangels is in an inner bay of Arctic see, and freezes over winter, this route could be used only in summer.

Now:

For Soviet Union, most critical part was both autumns of 41 and 42 and subsequent winters, it can be concluded that: LEND LEASE HASN'T PLAYED ANY BIG ROLE IN THIS WAR.

What was the most important want Soviet Union got was: FOOD and Trucks.

About military equipment:

UK:

Send both Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. Only Hurricane was used, because Spitfire was too similar to BF-109, so in many cases were lost due to friendly fire.

Some tanks were used around Leningrad.

US:

No major aviation equipment was send. Only Sherman tanks and trucks (Studebaker).

The rest were food, clothes, medicine stuff.

About Zhukov:

I agree. He was Stalinist, and bloody person. In my mind he wasn't superb general at all.

About Chekov:

Who is he? I hadn’t heard of a Soviet general by such surname.

" Mosier gives compelling evidence that most of what we believe about the Eastern Front was a fabrication of the Soviet Propaganda mill. "

I agree with that, but in 180 degree around. In fact, in Great Patriotic war (as Russians call WW2), there were many many occasions of splendid behavior of ordinary soldiers and formations, which were condemned by Stalin, because they could diminish his role of super hero.

In fact in 1948 (or 1949) he (Stalin) staged purge of Leningrad officials, who wanted to stage an International Fair to help rebuilding Leningrad after devastation which suffered in WW2. He went even so far that he called a 900 day siege of Leningrad a myth.

Quote Reply

1 2