Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: No love for russia
tank    4/28/2004 10:50:49 PM
I talk to friends some from lithuwania and other countries around russia and no seems to like the motherland.I even see people on this board taking shots at ya.To my question has russia burned so many bridges that no one in the world communinty wants to accept you back.Do you think it is because of leadership or the way your military has conducted operations in the past or something else all together.just curios on replies.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
roadcop    RE:No love for Russia   5/5/2004 3:23:55 AM
To Rule Britannia - The article quoted here is (very) obsolete. The situation in 1998 was really bad (average people's income have been reduced in 4-5 times), but even that was not so bad as described. Author was mistaken in many aspects. I tell you: it was 1994-1995 when wage payments have been delayed, and that was a hardest time for common people. I want to say that anyone shouldnt feel pity about us ;-). We are strong enough to recover, give us some time. To Oplot Mira - Nice to hear a reasonable voice of a true friend...
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:No love for Russia   5/5/2004 4:34:57 AM
To be quite honest, I don't think Russia will ever join the EU or NATO. I do not even think it desireable: EU: Russia is more than large enough to form a closed economy - there is very little need (once the economy is functioning properly) for foreign trade. The point is that trade will actually take place due to the relative advantage (Ricardo). NATO: The alliance is primarely an alliance of NAVAL powers. To be a bit provocative: Germany is only a glorified Borderguard. Russia is definately a continental power. The continental power - part of NATO will have the size to dissuade Russia from expanding in western direction - And there will be no desire from NATO to expand eastwards. This will in my view result in very low levels of armed forces on the NATO/EU-Russian boarder. the final economic result will be a somewhat poorer Russia, due to the higher infrastructural cost of land transport in relation to sea transport, but not a difference serious enough for Russia to get ambitious.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:No love for Russia   5/5/2004 6:10:00 AM
"Russia is definitely continental power" - it sounds SO ancient. During past three centuries it was said numerous times (in sometimes different words) by many Western leaders, generals and politicians. While Russia has tens of thousands km long sea border. In her glorious times Russia have always been 1-st class NAVAL power. Many people here will agree, I think. From XVIII century we always try to build modern and powerful Navy. Sometimes Russia have been succesful in completing this task. We have had powerful Navy in XVIII century, during Napoleonic Wars, in 1827 (during Greek Rebellion against Turkey), at the eve of Russo-Japanese War, during WW1, and before WW2 (most numerous submarine fleet in the world, battleships, cruisers, other warships).
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Russian NAVY   5/5/2004 8:35:17 AM
The Russian Navy has and is large. The problem is it is just a waste of money. 1905 The classical example of a totally wasted russian investment. 1914-1918 The Navy didn't do anything, except revolt. A dangerous waste of money. The Naval action from allied side worth mentioning in the Baltic was a few British Submarines. 1939-1945 The Russian Navy won the Battle of the Atlantic???? Or they sank the Japanese Navy ??? Cold War: The Russian came out dominating the High seas ??? The constan attempts to gain access to the sea has only caused Russia grief - Afghanistan being the most recent example.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Ancient   5/5/2004 8:36:30 AM
Sure it sounds ancient; my contention is that Rjussia is no different from what it was - communists or no communists.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE: Russian NAVY   5/5/2004 9:50:27 AM
Agree about 1905 and WW1. WW2 - Navy was trapped in inner seas, and due to German advance, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets were almost insignificant in war (compared to USN, RJN or RN). Northern Fleet was in better position, but established in 1933 was too small in numbers. Cold War - wrong shipbuilding policy of Soviet government has lead to what we have now (nothing combat-ready). Too many nuclear subs, few destroyers, overpowered and overarmed cruisers, no true carriers, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE: Ancient   5/5/2004 9:54:45 AM
Nordland SS-Division was mustered in Denmark, wasnt it?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE: Ancient   5/5/2004 10:39:05 AM
Actually, the Danish contribution was called Frikorps Danmark and never amounted to more than a batallion. I think it was part of Nordland originally. It was in action around Nerva in Estonia, where it's leader von Schallburg fell and the sorry remnants were distributed to other SS units. To preempt a snide remark: According to all information von Schallburg was never a Nazi, but an orphan, that saw his father getting shot by the russians and his mother urged the boy to "go west" before she died. That sort of childhood sort of makes You anti-soviet/anti-russian and not vere particular in your choice of associates. Today Denmark enjoys a most unwellcome goodwill in some parts of Estonia because of Frikorps Danmark. The Estonians cannot imagine that someone that has killed russians can be a bad person! This says quite a lot about the Russian behavior! You brought it up!
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE: Russian NAVY   5/5/2004 10:51:42 AM
If we go further back in the history of the Russian Navy: Peter the Great specifically prohibited any work on russian ships, that was not ordered by Danish or Dutch shipwrights! The only Russian Admirals worth remembering were foreign and especially Danish: Vitus Beering of the Beering Strait fame was born in Horsens - half an our by train from where I grew up. I repeat: Russian ambitions on overseas interest have only led to disgrace, waste of money and grief! Don't feel to bad about it: Russia has had a lot of reasonble Generals. Denmark has only had one worth bothering schoolchildrens memory about: Olaf Rye - and he was a Norwegean. On the other hand: We have had a host of naval heroes: To get a motortorpedo boat named after you, you would have to: 1. Personally attack the flagship of Admiral Nelson. 2. On a raft. 3. Only retire after being out of ammo and only one gun firing. 4. Survive. To get a corvette named after you, you have to terrorise the navy of a superpower with a frigatte stolen from said navy and with no more than said vessel.
 
Quote    Reply

ilpars    Naval Power - Continental power   5/5/2004 10:59:15 AM
What is the differance between 2? A naval power needs to control seas to achieve his strategical aims. If you accept this definition USA, UK, Japan and to some extend France are naval powers. Without this need, a country can build a large fleet but as his continental needs are dominant, navy destined to become secondary force, just a threat to enemy. For example WW1 era Germany. Russia simply do not need to control the seas. So, Russia is a continental power.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics