Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

[Lethaface]

The western system works for the west because it evolved and grew as western ideals and the like evolved.  It's a system designed for our way of thinking and our way of life.  Thusly it's good for Yankee imperialists, sneering British colonialists, and the French (no prefix required, name is sufficient to imply what I was getting at), but a poor fit for sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and somesuch.  They need a culturally well adapted system of government, and through colonialism, they lost some of that growth, and our continued attempts to make them more like us, we're doing them a disservice. 

 

Well said.

 

In terms of the chaos of Iraq, I've said it before but it was coming regardless of who started it.  Centuries of Sunni-Shia conflict, and decades of Sunni minority rule were going to boil over someday (see Syria for a reversal of roles in terms of Shia minority rule over a Sunni majority, with a very similar history of oppression and mass killings).  If it was not the US invasion, it'd have been the fighting between Saddam's sons in 2024 after the old man kicked the bucket, the Arab Spring, or any number of crises.  It's arrogance to assume that the west is powerful enough to change the 3rd World for the good because it's the west, just as much as it is to assign blame for all the problems of the present to western whatever.  

 

Agreed that it was coming regardless. However, usually a judge or jury won't let you get away with murder simply because that person would have died anyway sooner or later. ;-)

 

It is indeed arrogant of the West to assume they know what's best for everyone, apart even from having the power to let everyone have that what we think is best. While I respect people feeling moral obligation to help countries were our 'grandfathers' made a mess colonizing (for which I personally feel 0% responsibility as I wasn't there), I think the help isn't helping making things any better. Best leave everyone to fend for themselves, favoring cooperation as equals going for mutual-benefit deals over 'let us help those poor people over there'.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

There is an idealized view of our past for sure.  

 

Either way not entirely trusting one's government, even when you're working for it is hardly a bad idea.  It's not even in the sense that the government is out to get anyone, or is malicious, just that it's a big organization with most people trying to do some shade of the "right thing" some people doing the wrong things, and then some people counting down the years until they can retire while shoving the paperwork they're supposed to be doing into a very large file cabinet and forgetting about it.  

 

I guess that's my experience at least.  It's rare anyone means to do ill, but often once an action has worked through the various agencies and the like it can become something quite nasty.  Lots of roads to hell paved with great intentions.  

 

Exactly my experience. Although somehow I feel it's worse when something intended well ends up nasty, versus just plain being nasty. Might have well just been nasty, would have saved a lot of people with good intentions a whole lot of work

[Lethaface]

Returning from SNOT, I don't mind the military parades at all since a good way to keep up to date on new military tech and developments. Politics being what they be, without or with a parade. Good tank porn

 

I did lol on the Burning BUK, unfortunately it's not the 'smoking gun' we (or better said. the legal people) need.

[Hister]

While I respect people feeling moral obligation to help countries were our 'grandfathers' made a mess colonizing (for which I personally feel 0% responsibility as I wasn't there), I think the help isn't helping making things any better. Best leave everyone to fend for themselves, favoring cooperation as equals going for mutual-benefit deals over 'let us help those poor people over there'.

 

Lethaface, I agree with what you've got to say on the matter, it's just this part that I would also like to see happen but it's a bit naive to think we as humans can act that way. Still, a lot can be improved - not saying it's impossible, just very very hard to achieve. Maybe if whole world gets an outside enemy we will turn our aggression towards the attacking aliens.  

 

 

Agreed that it was coming regardless. However, usually a judge or jury won't let you get away with murder simply because that person would have died anyway sooner or later. ;-)

 

Exactly. I as a teacher can't give a negative score to my pupil in advance although I know 99,99% for sure he/she won't be able to score positively.

 

I already had similar debate about Iraq with panzersaurkrautwerfer in some other thread a while ago. This thread went way offtopic anyway already so I'm not feeling particularly guilty for popping in.

 

I think it's hard for anyone who was more or less directly or indirectly involved with Iraq or with other activities his state did/does to be totally impartial and subjective on the matter. I hold panzer in very hard regard when it comes to his views on the matter since his are a lot more down to earth then to many other people I know. BUT your counter arguments Lethaface come spot on. It's hard for someone who is claiming to operate from a higher moral ground then the other to remain seated in that position for long. In most cases, not that it's not possible. 

 

Cudos to both of you gentlemen, really. 

[Lethaface]

Thanks for the comments, Hister. I agree that while grossly off topic the discussion is interesting. Hence, my postings. It is indeed very difficult to try to be objective, even in relatively free countries. The ability to exchange thoughts, and thus entertain new ones, with people across the globe is a great benefit the internet age brings us :-)

[Hister]

Spot on, again.

[Battlefront.com]

Agreed that it was coming regardless. However, usually a judge or jury won't let you get away with murder simply because that person would have died anyway sooner or later. ;-)

True, but that's not a good analogy A better analogy is figuring out how to hold a cops accountable for a botched raid against a drug cartel (legitimate cause) and not handling it well (botched execution), which then leeds to an all out turf war between three major rival drug cartels because one sensed the other was weakened by the initial police raid.

In other words, you can hold the cops accountable for the botched raid, or perhaps even conducting it in the first place, but it gets VERY difficult to hold the cops accountable for everything else that followed. In fact, the argument in defense of the cops is that they wouldn't have had to do the raid in the first place if the drug cartels didn't exist.

Colin Powell, however, did put it very well prior to the invasion. He reminded President Bush of the old saying... "you break it, you own it" (traditionally this applies to shop keepers informing their customers what happens if they break something in their shop).

The interesting thing to ponder is how much worse the world would be without the positive aspects of Western influence. As a historian, I can pretty safely conclude "much, much worse". The sad thing is that it could be much, much better.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Not is not more off-topic than the discussion about Iraq and Afgahnistan we are currently having.

 

To steal a Leonard Cohen line, it's better than being blinded by the beauty of our weapons.

 

 

 

Well apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, JSOC is presumably assassinating people in countries they aren't at war with, without having brought them in front of a judge.

 

On the other hand in all but Somalia (which is really a question of "what government?" and above table Pakistan (basically they've opted to on the government-military side condone the strikes, while still doing public outrage) US drone operations are sanctioned by the legal governments of said states.  

 

I'm....not going to be insulting but the "bringing in front of a judge" aspect is about as reasonable as "simply waltzing in and arresting Hitler."  A raid isn't just a few guys hop on a helicopter, swoop in with search warrants in hand on a moment's notice.  The sort of raids I described earlier were largely possible because of how the urban operation restricted terrorist movements (the various checkpoints meant the terrorists had to live fairly close to their operational areas, heavy security simply meant that it was blatantly obvious where they lived etc etc).  In dealing with many of these targets:

 

1. Local government is complicit/too weak to effectively deal with the target

2. The window to do something about this guy is very narrow

3. The target is in a place much too risky to send in conventional forces without significant loss (or basically asking the question of if it's worth the risk to lose the lives of several soldiers, a few million dollars of hardware so we can go through the legal procedure to show that this guy who we have a small mountain of evidence showing what a bad, bad man he is is in fact a bad bad man that we want to put in jail).

 

Even beyond that looking at historical counter-insurgencies or counter terrorism operations, bringing someone to trial has rarely been the historical case outside of domestic situations, or cases in which the targeted individual either survived the raid somehow, or was apprehended in a way that prevented them from being able to fight back.  The difference now is drones have the endurance and sensor fidelity to loiter over possible target locations, and the sensor fidelity to do the sort of "kill" it used to take big burly men with lots of guns to do.

 

 

 

If I as a state have to resort to outside of the law, large scale, (international) assassination operations to maintain national security, I'd be asking myself what I have done to make the situation so FUBAR that I'm even considering debating collateral. It's not 'normal' for a democratic state to have hitlists with several thousand people on it. While there is more to debate I think that alone is enough for me to rephrase your example of the thief and the murderer: I think it's more like the murderer confronting someone, who is both a thief and a murderer, about his thievery. 

 

The French, Israelis, the UK and countless other countries have all practiced the same exact tactic of international assassinations against various threats.  We're not talking about something "new" we've just hit that point where targeting and shooter technology has combined to allow for the sort of operations that used to exist purely in fevered dreams.  

 

However in terms of "what I have done" uh, yeah sort of missing the point to a large degree.  As:

 

1. The targets are folks who belong to organizations that have historically targeted the west because allah said its righteous.

2. Folks who support an unstable Afghanistan were stoning remains the legitimate means of judicial punishment

3. Folks who believe jihad is the one true path and if they explode enough people allah will smile on their dreams

 

That's sort of making it a bit glib, but these folks are opposed to us not for yesterday's acts, but for a long lasting historical grievances and perceived slights (US TROOPS NEAR MECCA HARRAM!!!!!).  If it was not the US, then it'd be the oh wait they did the UK.  Well if it wasn't the US and the UK it'd be Franc...oh crap.  Okay they did them too.  Well if it wasn't the US, the UK, France, it'd be the Spani...well damnit.  Even in the event of total US departure from the middle east, they'd still be blowing up Americans because of our cultural assault on Islam, or because we did not pay the ransom to not blow us up because allah commands it.  It's not as simple as it seems.

 

It's also not something we can kill our way out of, but the blowing up folks who are dead set on killing Americans is sort of symptoms management for the disease.  We've however mistaken it for the cure which is really more than a small problem.  

 

 

 

Agreed that it was coming regardless. However, usually a judge or jury won't let you get away with murder simply because that person would have died anyway sooner or later. ;-)

 

Again, Steve addressed this pretty well.  You can hold the US accountable for:

 

1. The post invasion chaos.  There really wasn't a good plan for that.

2. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.  That created a lot of the low-level trigger puller type insurgents for the Sunni population.

 

The dead Iraqis bloating in the Tigris, the exploding Mosques, the "mentally handicapped children as bomb transportation" tactic, and the VBIEDs in markets is something the Iraqis can take the lion's share of blame for.  It's my fault if I fire you for no good reason.  Your fault if your anger causes you to rape and murder a few people.

 

 

 

It is indeed arrogant of the West to assume they know what's best for everyone, apart even from having the power to let everyone have that what we think is best. While I respect people feeling moral obligation to help countries were our 'grandfathers' made a mess colonizing (for which I personally feel 0% responsibility as I wasn't there), I think the help isn't helping making things any better. Best leave everyone to fend for themselves, favoring cooperation as equals going for mutual-benefit deals over 'let us help those poor people over there'.

 

And it's very arrogant to assume we break everything too though.  In a lot of ways it's handy to blame things on "The West" but the troubles of the middle east reach all the way back well past colonialism.  We give ourselves a lot of credit for the power to do both good and bad, and frankly, too much credit for either.  

 

That's really the powerless moment you feel in Iraq.  No matter what you say, what you do, how many times you point out that Shia are people too, there's Sunnis that believe they're pretty much satan worshippers and allah will only smile when all of them are dead.  The looting anything worth money regardless of community benefit is something no amount of "west" could fix, nor the corruption.  No amount of attempt to foster small business with loads or grants would help as long as it was simply seen as a way to scam the Americans (which made it darkly funny in a way, the small grants we gave were totally enough to set up a good shop, or make your current shop much bigger, but nooooo, we're going to buy expensive stuff that's going to get stolen by our jealous neighbor, and then cry to the Americans for more money).

 

 

 

BUT your counter arguments Lethaface come spot on. It's hard for someone who is claiming to operate from a higher moral ground then the other to remain seated in that position for long. In most cases, not that it's not possible. 

 

If I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, doesn't mean I can't call you a murderer for shooting down Nancy Sinatra.  Further I'd like to think my experience on the ground sets a nice contrast.  I have yet to shoot anyone.  I did however open several schools, briefly restore power to a neighborhood before the generator was looted, provide key tracking of displaced persons, and while I was at it release some prisoners back to their families.  As much as the American way of war can bring devastation, we're very conscious of doing "good" even if it's the kind of "good" I mentioned that can turn out "terrible" once it's actually implemented.

 

Contrast this to the Russian army which can give locusts a run for it's money, if locusts could rape and install puppet governments.  That's actually rather another reason I strongly dislike the Russian military, it's like having another company that does what you do, only sans morality, decency, and gloats about how it gets away with a lack of either.  Which almost loops back onto the topic, it's why I hate the Russian "victory" day parades.  They're in effect celebrating the nightmare they brought through Eastern Europe, the Stalinist oppression of thousands of innocent people, and the systematic rape and looting of anything with a correctly sized set of holes, or that could fit on a train back to Moscow.  It's like if the US Army had a "Wounded Knee Victory Parade" or the Brits held a festival to celebrate the first use of the maxim gun on indigenous people.  Then pair it with being a celebration of a return to Russian militarism and it just honestly gets sort of sick in that regard.  

[AttorneyAtWar]

Contrast this to the Russian army which can give locusts a run for it's money, if locusts could rape and install puppet governments.  That's actually rather another reason I strongly dislike the Russian military, it's like having another company that does what you do, only sans morality, decency, and gloats about how it gets away with a lack of either.  Which almost loops back onto the topic, it's why I hate the Russian "victory" day parades.  They're in effect celebrating the nightmare they brought through Eastern Europe, the Stalinist oppression of thousands of innocent people, and the systematic rape and looting of anything with a correctly sized set of holes, or that could fit on a train back to Moscow.  It's like if the US Army had a "Wounded Knee Victory Parade" or the Brits held a festival to celebrate the first use of the maxim gun on indigenous people.  Then pair it with being a celebration of a return to Russian militarism and it just honestly gets sort of sick in that regard.  

 

I find myself agreeing with your post up until this point. Did the Russian military commit horrendous acts as it swept Germany back to Berlin? absolutely. I don't think its fair to say that the parade represents all of that, I don't need to remind people almost 30 million Russians were killed throughout that war, the parade is as much a celebration of there sacrifice as it is there victory.

 

HOWEVER, you can easily make the argument that is what the parade has turned into, a nationalistic celebration of the subjugation of the eastern European countries shortly after World War 2, one I can easily agree with at this point. Nothing is ever black and white, but I think the parade deserves a bit more context than your giving it, the most poignant moment for me was a little Russian girl saluting the Russian parading troops in World War 2 garb. Yes shes to young to understand the horrors of that war and the mistakes her country made, but its also a moment that in itself deserves some respect, she might not have been there if not for the sacrifice of those men and woman the parade is celebrating.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Raptorx7

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I find myself agreeing with your post up until this point. Did the Russian military commit horrendous acts as it swept Germany back to Berlin? absolutely. I don't think its fair to say that the parade represents all of that, I don't need to remind people almost 30 million Russians were killed throughout that war, the parade is as much a celebration of there sacrifice as it is there victory.

 

But it's never been addressed or looked at in a serious light.  There's been much written on the damage the Allies did (from bombing to the sheer number of French civilians killed in the fighting to liberate France herself), and the like, but the Russian narrative remains this action movie mockery of what actually occurred.  The Soviet Army sat and watched Warsaw burn because it was the wrong sort of Poles that stood up.  Countless innocents found themselves outbound to the gulags for reasons only known to political officers and god.  These monstrous acts and all the others have been, and continue to be airbrushed out of the Russian narrative in favor of the "Great Patriotic War."  This in turn does a greater dishonor to history and the sacrifice of the men who served because it turns the nightmare of 1940-1945 into a simple tale of brave stalwart men saving the motherland at great cost! instead of the much more complicated, much more meaningful reality contained within.

 

So to that, the parade is an affirmation of this whitewashed and glamorized history, and it remains a nationalistic celebration of same.  

[AttorneyAtWar]

But it's never been addressed or looked at in a serious light.  There's been much written on the damage the Allies did (from bombing to the sheer number of French civilians killed in the fighting to liberate France herself), and the like, but the Russian narrative remains this action movie mockery of what actually occurred.  The Soviet Army sat and watched Warsaw burn because it was the wrong sort of Poles that stood up.  Countless innocents found themselves outbound to the gulags for reasons only known to political officers and god.  These monstrous acts and all the others have been, and continue to be airbrushed out of the Russian narrative in favor of the "Great Patriotic War."  This in turn does a greater dishonor to history and the sacrifice of the men who served because it turns the nightmare of 1940-1945 into a simple tale of brave stalwart men saving the motherland at great cost! instead of the much more complicated, much more meaningful reality contained within.

 

So to that, the parade is an affirmation of this whitewashed and glamorized history, and it remains a nationalistic celebration of same.  

 

Oh yeah I definitely agree with all of that, I addressed it in the following paragraphs, I figured I'd just add the other positive side of it, which is unfortunately overshadowed by what you have described.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Hister]

The interesting thing to ponder is how much worse the world would be without the positive aspects of Western influence. As a historian, I can pretty safely conclude "much, much worse". The sad thing is that it could be much, much better.

 

I wholly agree Steve. Longer lasting ideal situation can not be achieved since the way universe works is a constant change, fluctuation and perfect state is only a dream, if at all then it happens only for a very brief moment but is generally only something that we can strive for but not really reach. Striving for better can in the end actually make things better but not without tough obstacles on the way.  

 

 

I'm....not going to be insulting but the "bringing in front of a judge" aspect is about as reasonable as "simply waltzing in and arresting Hitler."  

 

True, true but I can never get past the notion it's being somewhat overused and abused. That's my totally uneducated and maybe also naive guess and gut feeling. And I think that is what Lethaface is hinting too in his posts.  

 

 

The French, Israelis, the UK and countless other countries have all practiced the same exact tactic of international assassinations against various threats.  We're not talking about something "new" we've just hit that point where targeting and shooter technology has combined to allow for the sort of operations that used to exist purely in fevered dreams.  

 

I know. I also know there is a degree of how misused such actions can get or were and also know that they are necessary. This was not an attack on USA or you personally. Whoever can, will. But there is a degree which we can debate on and I'm well aware USA is using it on a less lower scale then any other global or regional power contestants would. Still, this does not make it all good and is as such ripe for our debate.  

 

 

And it's very arrogant to assume we break everything too though.  In a lot of ways it's handy to blame things on "The West" but the troubles of the middle east reach all the way back well past colonialism.  We give ourselves a lot of credit for the power to do both good and bad, and frankly, too much credit for either. 

 

I fully agree. If I can extend it let me give this simple example.  The way many peoplein Eastern Europe see USA and it's capabilities is simply funny and idiotic. For example, CIA and FBI are seen as unmistakable and omnipotent. This view is stupid as hell and not at all in line with reality but then again as long people will bite it it will give USA a bigger leverage then it actually has so in a way that's positive for it.

 

 

That's really the powerless moment you feel in Iraq.  No matter what you say, what you do, how many times you point out that Shia are people too, there's Sunnis that believe they're pretty much satan worshippers and allah will only smile when all of them are dead.  The looting anything worth money regardless of community benefit is something no amount of "west" could fix, nor the corruption.  No amount of attempt to foster small business with loads or grants would help as long as it was simply seen as a way to scam the Americans (which made it darkly funny in a way, the small grants we gave were totally enough to set up a good shop, or make your current shop much bigger, but nooooo, we're going to buy expensive stuff that's going to get stolen by our jealous neighbor, and then cry to the Americans for more money).

 

A relative of mine was working for Saddam in Yugoslavian times (in the 80's) as a construction firm contractor. He was building bunkers and other military infrastructure. He got a similar impression of the local people there so I fully understand and agree with your notion about them. Such things just show you even more how some tings are better left to be not touched.  

 

 

If I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, doesn't mean I can't call you a murderer for shooting down Nancy Sinatra.  Further I'd like to think my experience on the ground sets a nice contrast.  I have yet to shoot anyone.  I did however open several schools, briefly restore power to a neighborhood before the generator was looted, provide key tracking of displaced persons, and while I was at it release some prisoners back to their families.  As much as the American way of war can bring devastation, we're very conscious of doing "good" even if it's the kind of "good" I mentioned that can turn out "terrible" once it's actually implemented.

 

Yes, I understood this about you before already and for that I personally hold you in high regard if that means anything to you. I also fully agree with the notion USA army actions are way more soft-handed then of most other armies out there. Still, it could get better and that is also why I'm having this discussion with you right now. 

 

 

Contrast this to the Russian army which can give locusts a run for it's money, if locusts could rape and install puppet governments.  That's actually rather another reason I strongly dislike the Russian military, it's like having another company that does what you do, only sans morality, decency, and gloats about how it gets away with a lack of either.  Which almost loops back onto the topic, it's why I hate the Russian "victory" day parades.  They're in effect celebrating the nightmare they brought through Eastern Europe, the Stalinist oppression of thousands of innocent people, and the systematic rape and looting of anything with a correctly sized set of holes, or that could fit on a train back to Moscow.  It's like if the US Army had a "Wounded Knee Victory Parade" or the Brits held a festival to celebrate the first use of the maxim gun on indigenous people.  Then pair it with being a celebration of a return to Russian militarism and it just honestly gets sort of sick in that regard.  

 

Yeah, my views too. They were on par with Germans when it comes to committed atrocities, on many levels they even surpassed the Germans - they only got bailed out 'cos they won the war on the "right" side. I also have a rather veeeery unpleasant feeling when I see WW2 "partisan" memorial events here in Slovenia since things are oftentimes presented too one-sided, still. All in all it's crazy to put so much effort into celebrating things that were instead of channeling energy into a more healthy future. 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Hister

[AttorneyAtWar]

I wholly agree Steve. Longer lasting ideal situation can not be achieved since the way universe works is a constant change, fluctuation and perfect state is only a dream, if at all then it happens only for a very brief moment but is generally only something that we can strive for but not really reach. Striving for better can in the end actually make things better but not without tough obstacles on the way.  

 

 

 

That reminds me of a quote from Gladiator that can definitely be substituted for America or the rest of the "western" world.

 

"There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile."

[Hister]

Ha, cool quote Raptor. 

[John Kettler]

I have a request I'd like to make of someone who speaks Russian. Specifically, it concerns some rather interesting things the announcer said about Russia's neighbors, the gist of which apparently was that they were coming back to Russia! I got this from a friend who speaks Russian and to whom I'd sent the links for the RT Victory Parade program. Since we all know no announcer would dare say such provocative things on his own, it seems reasonable to conclude this was a message Putin wished to convey and from a very large podium. Would some kind soul please post what was said?

 

Thanks!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 12, 2015 by John Kettler

[VasFURY]

Yeah, i thought i heard something along those lines when I was watching the parade Live. When I have the time, will rewatch it, pay more attention, and will post what was said.

[agusto]

That reminds me of a quote from Gladiator that can definitely be substituted for America or the rest of the "western" world.

 

"There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile."

 

The small but important difference though is that the dream of the ancient romans was to subjugate and enslave all non-romans that were unable to withstand romes armies. The roman republic (which was more an aristocracy with the ordinary free people having nothing but an indirect veto and the large slave & un-free population having no political rights at all) than what we today understand as republic) wasnt any better than the later imperial rome in this regard. I know that you didnt want to say that, and i am just kidding, but now that i think of it, the way i just described ancient Rome is exactely how North Korean media describe modern day America. Here is a sample of NK propaganda:

 

 

Sorry for posting off-topic again btw.

[slysniper]

North Korea has some good reporting going on there.

 

Maybe we should get their opinion about the parade and the Russian new equipment.

 

At least it will have a slight bit of truth in its report.

[LukeFF]

I do agree with you though on LukeFFs behaviour beeing inappropriate though, not because he is occasionally makeing fun of you, but because his profile says he is an official CM Beta Tester, which gives his statements and opinions influence on the general reputation of Battlefront.com. If i were Steve, i would tell LukeFF that publicly making fun of one of their customers is a big no-no because it may hurt the companys reputation.

 

At the end of the day, if the behaviour of the people you named really bothers you as much as you say, i recommend you collect their posts and as soon as you have sufficient evidence of their "bullying" write a ticket at helpdesk or send a PM to one of the Admins.

 

Oh, please. When one posts information for public consumption on the internet, one must expect people to respond to said information. It doesn't matter if it's about panzers on the Eastern Front, panzers on Mars, underslung Panther turrets in outer space, or nukes at Kursk. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by LukeFF

[Battlefront.com]

Specifically, it concerns some rather interesting things the announcer said about Russia's neighbors, the gist of which apparently was that they were coming back to Russia!

 

 

Yeah, i thought i heard something along those lines when I was watching the parade Live. When I have the time, will rewatch it, pay more attention, and will post what was said.

It would be interesting to hear what was said, but if one listens to various high ranking Russian government officials (Putin included), it's all been said before. Since Russian media is state controlled, it would be shocking to not hear the same message via Russian media. Sometimes the message is subtle, not so other times. Claiming that Ukraine isn't a country and that Russia will "defend" its people no matter where they are, are all pretty well documented comments made over many years. Not subtle The rhetoric has been moving more towards not subtle since February 2014. So much so that even Lukashenko stated this:

 

"Those who think that the Belarusian land is part as what they call the Russian world, almost part of Russia, forget about it!" Lukashenko said. "Belarus is a modern and independent state."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/29/world/europe/ap-eu-belarus-lukashenko.html?_r=0

“There are forces in Russia that want to limit the influence of the Belarusian model, Lukashenko on the processes in Russia,” Lukashenko added. “We are a sovereign state. We are brothers with Russia, but we want to live in our own house,” he noted.

http://russia-insider.com/en/belarus-remains-russias-closest-ally-does-not-lean-towards-west-lukashenko/6264

Lukashenko said he would fight any invader including Russian President Vladimir Putin. "No matter who comes to Belarussian land, I will fight. Even if it is Putin," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.592189

And this is from one or Russia's very few allies, so imagine how those on the border with Russia that are not allies feel Actually, they're pretty vocal so little imagination is needed

 

Oh, please. When one posts information for public consumption on the internet, one must expect people to respond to said information. It doesn't matter if it's about panzers on the Eastern Front, panzers on Mars, underslung Panther turrets in outer space, or nukes at Kursk.

True that sometimes one is left with the difficult decision of saying what one feels about a post/poster or saying nothing at all. I've found that the more frequently someone engages in behavior/opinions that obligates that sort of dilemma, the harder it is for others to say nothing. As the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango". I cut a little slack for such situations, but I do appreciate not having to.

Steve

[agusto]

Oh, please. When one posts information for public consumption on the internet, one must expect people to respond to said information. It doesn't matter if it's about panzers on the Eastern Front, panzers on Mars, underslung Panther turrets in outer space, or nukes at Kursk. 

 

I wasnt reffering to this thread in particular. As i said, i find it perfectly alright to link to the stories John publishes on the Internet. But if you act disrespecful towards anyone, not just John, it might negatively reflect on Battlefronts reputation IMO. You can mock people all day long as a private person, but when you officially link yourself to a company, what you do and say will, to a certain degree, not only be seen as your opinion but as that of the whole company.

 

But lets leave it here, i dont think that the whole JK thing deserves as much attention as we are paying to it.

[Thewood1]

It does when he is posting 1000 word posts in the middle of threads.  He continues to use these forums a therapy session and he needs to stop.  Talk about besmirching BFC's rep.  I would hate to think of what new people think of some of his posts.

[Aurelius]

Kosovo's objection has more to do with who's friends with who.  The behavior of the Serbian military pretty much 1993-1999 is on the road to terrible, and we're ready to remember the agony of sad that the Serbs went through during the bombing, but not the well filled ditches the Serbs left from Croatia, through Bosnia, and beyond.  All the Serbs had to do is stop shooting civilians, and there wouldn't have been much of a leg to stand on.

 

As the case is the region is a lot more stable today, and there's a marked downtick in violence.  And Kosovo isn't a US territory so there you go.  

 

I must admit, the behavior of Serbian army was shameful to say the least, but what of the behavior of Croatian army and its paramilitary of-shoots? Of the Bosnian armed militias and jihadists? Your country and its allies chose to side with fascists and radical islamists because it saw it fit at the time. Now we have those radical islamists walking up to the police stations and shooting policemen. And Kosovo. Really? Your country again intervened in entirely internal question and again chose to side with islamists and people who see it fit to finance their operations through drug and organ trade. The entire case for Kosovo was made up by Blair and his wife. Please don't take this as a sign that i support Milosevic and his cronies or that I deny the war crimes that have happened in that period. I answered mostly because what you speak is not entirely true.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Aurelius

[Lacroix]

''''Kosovo's objection has more to do with who's friends with who.  The behavior of the Serbian military pretty much 1993-1999 is on the road to terrible, and we're ready to remember the agony of sad that the Serbs went through during the bombing, but not the well filled ditches the Serbs left from Croatia, through Bosnia, and beyond.  All the Serbs had to do is stop shooting civilians, and there wouldn't have been much of a leg to stand on.

 

As the case is the region is a lot more stable today, and there's a marked downtick in violence.  And Kosovo isn't a US territory so there you go.  ''''''

 

(note: land in 21st century doesnt need to be conquered on a political 19th century map)

 

 

i duuno about other stuff, but i am from serbia and i am ethnic serb. and i am not nationalist, i am anti serb , i am often disgusted by our traditions ,  i think its pointless and brainwashing-ish. i like western europe  but,

 

you are wrong

 

situation in our country back then was to say the least very complicated. its , (very loose term) something like war of the clans. you have many factions during the time. and listen now, NONE of them are good and NONE of them are bad

 

Albanian unrest  started in the 80s , or even earlier. but 80s are the starting point of this story (kinda simplified story) , it wasnt that much of a big deal, you know unrests happen but not many people at that time thought it will be War... we must see things from their (past) point of view (their: people in the past)

 

you have quazi communists/socialist or whatever they are, you have albanian nationalists, you have Serb nationalists and many other factions. and most of them are dumb as ****, on both sides (plebs)

 

simply put, there are interests of Albanian nationalists, ethnic albanians and to some extent extremists, problem is , sometimes its hard to differentiate who is extremist and who is not, who is for* extremists and who is not and how much do they support certain idea at the given time/region, its VERY VERY complicated. 3 people playing board games @ basement can get into fight , not to mention province/state where there are milions of people...

 

AND you have  serbian moderates ,nationalists and extremists.. its a ****ty mess

 

so their interests (albanian): have their own country/Join albania,or get bigger autonomy

 

Serb interests: keep kosovo (since its heart of serbia and all that bull**** , even tho its true thats where serbia WAS dominant , now its not , due to ww1 and ww2 and other events ) 

 

on other hand you have Milosevic who is "neutral' and want to perserve things (the president), but in reality he kiiiinda secretly does things to benefit ethnic serbs since he sees things are eventually gona get bad, but how bad ?

 

Albanians are those who are attacking status quo,that must be clear, back then Our country was Recognized by the world,everything was legit.

 

Terrorist attacks started, small or big doesnt matter

 

you will say , ''they started   because albanians were supressed''

 

but that is not a honest answer , do you Really think you know who throw the first stone? its a multidimensional situation/problem, you cant just put it into linear box. theres lots of propaganda on both sides, and honestly, you cant know the truth by watching ,well one of the Not so credible News : CNN , 25 000 km away somewhere in atlanta

 

**** happened, on both sides , but on a multidimensional level (Where,how, what,why,Reaction to previous event, wrong conclusions ,wrong translations of the actions etc etc etc ) 

 

you know your country (State)  is very famous for ... well ... strange inconsitencies right? so is every country at one point in time, but just keep that in mind when talking about informations and clinton and other ... ' loving' people. 

i think its safe to assume that clinton doesnt (didnt) give a **** about serbs nor albanians. or at lest its more realistic saying that it doesnt matter what he 'thinks' , he can say he did it for humanitarian reasons, or for the money , it doesnt matter, his opinion is irrelevant. So far Evidence has shown that there are no bad/good guys, only dead/alive guys

Edited May 13, 2015 by Lacroix

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Interesting read you two. I very much relate to all that, with recent events. A lot of people do not understand that the events on the ground are whole lot more seriously complicated than black and white as outsiders/interested parties try to picture them. Getting that message across is even more complicated.