Happy Putin!

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Actually Suvorov's theories seem much closer to the truth than Russian official history.

Only in your dreams.

History is a SCIENCE.

A work of real historian is always based upon facts and documents.
If a person makes his conlusions upon falsifications and his own fantasies, such person called a fiction-writer or bullsh!ter.
Suvorov is a typicall bullsh!ter and a lier.

And as far as I know, major historians have reformed their view of history following his discoveries.

1) Names, please.
2) What discoveries? Suvorov discovered - NOTHING.
3) As far as I know, real historians called Rezun's theories a "populist's bullsh!t", which has nothing common with history as a science. His books are unscientific by definition, because he is talking out of his arse, instead of proving his lies with documents.

There is nothing 'bad' for Russia about them, btw. No idea why you're knee jerking. I'm all for Stalin coming out of this smarter and sneakier than thought before.

How LIES could be anything, but bad?

Suvorov is a lier.

The plan "Groza" was not a plan of pre-emptive strike against Germany. It was a plan for troops deployment in case of war. And simple check of the supplies statistic can give you an answer was Red Army ready for an offensive operations at summer 1941 or not.

They are not below zero on knowledge of history. I'm pretty sure that their petty theories aside they could both seporately pwn you in a history test. Kasparov knows more things by date that you will forget.

Oh, yeah.
It's not me who seriously claims that Jesus was born in 11th century, Egyptian pyramids were erected, well, 700 (seven hundred) years ago, and the same nosence. Whole Kasparov's article is made of little lies, such as a lie is that, if ancient people didn't know notes, that means that ancient history is a fake. Even Sumers knew how to record music, and we can hear their music after decryption of their clay tablets. But obviously Sumers didn't use a MODERN notes to do that.

You know, what really pisses me off when talking to you is that you don't know where the line is.

If talking with me pisses you off, then why don't you just stop talking?

I mean, sure you can say Kasparov is this or that, but then you begin acting stupid making ****** claims in defence of russia.

What ****** claims?
You brought him as creditable source about Russian politics. I've said that the guy support lunatic theories and proved it.
Now ask yourself - would you believe a single word of a person about anything, who proved to be a lunatic in one specific (history) field?
Imagine, a person who has lunatic veiws about history and who is lecturing you about modern Israeli/American/whatever politics?
Whould you trust him more than a regular lunatic, only because he once was a great chess player?
I doubt.

Kasparov is not a loser in history.

He is.
Even more than that - a person who seriously believes that the history of human kind have been faked (why? and how the hell different rulers at different parts of the world could synchronize such effort to falsify history?), such person is either a foil halt (a total idiot) or a charlatan (which is the case of Fomenko and Kasparov).

Stalin was not blindly relying on Hitler

Sure he was not.
I would recommend you to read this book:

http://bookshome.ru/full_descript.php?id=12230

It's called "The secret scenario of the beggining of war". It's writen by two Jews who survived the holocoust at Babii-Yar (So, I think you can accept them as a reliable source). It's far from Soviet version of history, but aside Suvorov's lies, the authors prove their version with real facts and real documents.

and the newspaper images are not faked.

The image you've posted is not from the Times.

Here is the link to your article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2302783.ece

It doesn't contain the picture you've posted:


I find this picture suspicious, because, considering the perspective, planes are too close to each other. It's not really necessary for a fighter pilot to approach so close.
Besides, your article says about two Typhoons.
two Typhoons, based at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire, were scrambled to identify and shadow the unannounced arrivals, which turned back before reaching UK airspace.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2302783.ece

This is Typhoon:


Surely I'm not an expert and can be wrong, but "Typhoon" on your picture looks strange to me.

Where is its canards (which are the part of Thyphoon's aerodinamic concept)? Why the plane on your picture has different wings (again delta-wing is distinguishable feature of Typhoon). Why a cockpit looks different? Typhoon is a single seat fighter, afaik. Why there is no white circle at the emblem of the RAF?

(However, this could be due to image quality).

I have no problems with pictures of Russian bombers near UK borders.
Here is the real picture:


There you can see a real Typhoon escorting a Tu-95 at reasonable distance. Notice, the jet on your picture doesn't have any insignia, except the what is suppose to be a RAF emblem. The plane on my pic has insignia. Now here comes the question: if these two fighters are from the same wing, why one has insignia, while other doesn't?

The answer to these questions is simple - the plane on your picture is not a Thyphoon (that condradicts with your article). I bet that you found that picture via any search engine and attached it to your article.

The fighter on your picture cannot be a Thyphoon, because, surprise, surprise, it's CLEARLY a Tornado F-3:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5923/tornadoac8.png

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/811/tornado1xl5.png

So, suck it up, boy. You've made a fake, even if it's not photoshoped (which is very unlikely).

You can defend your country. I do it too. But you have to stop before your claims get preposterous.

So stop it.
You spread bs about my country. When I say "BS", I mean a TOTAL BULL$HIT. Ask yourself - did Serb ever attacked Israel? Did he ever spreaded any false info about Israel?

No.

Then why the hell you think it's OK for you to spreading crap about my country (even non-intentionally)? And why, in this case, my reaction to your BS, surprises you?

[Serb]

Originally posted by LordShiva


He is. He has teh stealth muscle techmology

6th dans (real masters of martial arts) rarely look like Arnie.

[VetLegion]

The fighter on your picture cannot be a Thyphoon, because, surprise, surprise, it's CLEARLY a Tornado F-3

Ouch! Siro pwned twice in the same thread (so far). Serb is a dangerous guy to argue with

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion

The fighter on your picture cannot be a Thyphoon, because, surprise, surprise, it's CLEARLY a Tornado F-3

Ouch! Siro pwned twice in the same thread (so far). Serb is a dangerous guy to argue with

QFT. Serb

[LordShiva]

[Kataphraktoi]

WTF

... serb is right that Suvorov is a POS revisionist historian. The man was born after WW2, had no firsthand experiences there, and is making stories out of thin air.

However.



I believe the jet is actually to the side of the bomber. It appears to be above but i think thats a optical illusion. Compare the detail size on the fighter to the bomber. They cant be above each other unless it actually is a bad photo edit. I think the jet is about the same distance from the bomber as the jet is in the second picture.

[MarkG]

How the Kremlin watchers were fooled
By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes
BBC News, Moscow

Russia's Vladimir Putin is due to stand down as president next year, but there is a growing recognition within the international community that his political influence could last much longer.

For the last two years, one of the favourite pastimes of Moscow's hacks and Kremlin watchers has been laying odds on who will replace him when he steps down.

For step down he must, and he has repeatedly said that he will.

The early money was on a young acolyte of Mr Putin called Dmitry Medvedev. By the beginning of this year the heavy betting had shifted to Sergei Ivanov, an old friend from his KGB days.

And that is where it stayed until two weeks ago, when the odds on either Mr Ivanov or Mr Medvedev becoming Russia's president suddenly lengthened dramatically.

Out of the blue, Mr Putin named a complete unknown as Russia's new prime minister: Victor Zubkov.

Then, a couple of days later, Mr Putin suggested openly that the obscure Mr Zubkov would be an excellent candidate to replace him as president.

A week later, Mr Putin suggested that he himself might be a good candidate to become prime minister when he steps down from the presidency next March.

All this has sent Kremlin hacks in to a collective spin, scrambling for an explanation.

The clear conclusion is that the man who will now replace Vladimir Putin as Russia's leader is, in all probability, Vladimir Putin.

Propaganda

We are now asking ourselves why we did not see this coming.

The main reason is that Mr Putin has put on a very good act.

In interview after interview he has insisted that, despite his huge popularity, he will follow the Russian constitution, and leave office after his second term.

He has carefully nurtured his possible successors, promoting them to higher office, and making sure they got a slice of airtime on state-run television.

It was all very convincing.

But, with the benefit of hindsight, contrary signals have been there for some time.

I think the first time I realised that something was wrong with the conventional wisdom was in mid-August.

Russia's main newspapers began running large photo spreads of Mr Putin on his summer holidays in Siberia.

The president, 55, was shown in a selection of highly contrived macho poses, astride a Mongolian horse, staring out across the wilderness or with a huge jungle knife at his belt.

But the real show stopper was a shot of a bare-chested Mr Putin, muscles rippling, fishing in a Siberian river.

His heroic poses could have come straight from a Soviet-era propaganda poster.

But to what end? Why did a man who is already hugely popular, and about to step down, need a propaganda boost?

'Major force'

A few days later I was having dinner with a group of Russian academics, a couple of whom are very close to the Kremlin.

"What on earth are those photographs about?" I asked.

"They show Mr Putin is still a strong and virile man," one said.

"Yes, but why does he need to show he's strong and virile if he's about to step down?" I insisted.

"I do not," one of them declared, "consider that we are witnessing the end of the Putin era.

"Indeed I would say we are still at the beginning of the Putin era. I expect Mr Putin to be a major force in Russian politics until the 2020s."

It was a telling remark.

Public support

How exactly Mr Putin intends to engineer his continuation in power is still not entirely clear.

He may, as he has suggested, become prime minister. He may anoint the obscure Mr Zubkov as a loyal successor, and meanwhile prepare to make a return as president in four years' time.

Either way, Russia's people will cheer him on.

One BBC colleague joked to me recently: "Only the Russians could get rid of the communists, and then invite the secret police back to run the place instead."

State control

In the 1990's Russia made a brief, chaotic attempt at democracy. It was, by and large, a disaster.

But amid the turmoil it did gain a democratic constitution, free elections, a multitude of political parties, an outspoken media and the beginnings of a civil society.

In his eight years in power Mr Putin has done much to dismantle that fragile infrastructure.

Big chunks of the media have been taken back under state control. Opposition parties have been driven out of parliament, some out of existence.

Elections for the governors of Russia's vast regions have simply been abolished.

At every stage, the majority of the Russian people have cheered him on, grateful and relieved that their country is once again stable and increasingly prosperous.

By stepping down as President, Mr Putin appears to want to show the outside world that he is sticking absolutely to the letter of the Russian constitution.

It is still possible he will hand over power and walk away.

But there is also a real danger that Russia is now sleepwalking its way back to autocracy.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...nt/7041018.stm

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Serb

edited: btw, the B-52 you've sent to Moscow airshow this year, entered service in 60's and still in active service. It's amazing that this 40+ years old peice of junk is still flying.

Its an excellent machine

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Serb
edited: btw, the B-52 you've sent to Moscow airshow this year, entered service in 60's and still in active service. It's amazing that this 40+ years old peice of junk is still flying.

Wrong angle, buddy. The B-52's long lifespan (the USAF doesn't want to remove it from service until 2040 at the earliest) is widely considered evidence of its excellent design.

B-52's proved very useful in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again, so it's probably not a piece of junk quite yet.

[Serb]

The B-52 demonstrated at Moscow Air show was a piece of junk. At least its commander said so. After a question about suspicious appearance of his plane, he answered: what did you expect from the machine that entered service in 60's? Thanks's God that piece of crap is still flying.

But in general, yeah, I accept that B-52 is a fine design, just like a Tu-95 is a fine design too. They both remain in service, despite being pretty old.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi


Its an excellent machine

Tu-95 is even more an excellent machine

[Serb]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
I believe the jet is actually to the side of the bomber. It appears to be above but i think thats a optical illusion. Compare the detail size on the fighter to the bomber. They cant be above each other unless it actually is a bad photo edit.

Did I said the fighter is above the bomber? Of course the jet is to the side of the bomber. This is the size of the Tu-95 comparing to B-52
What I've meant is that jet flies to close to the bomber, nearly wing to wing. And I see no reason for a fighter pilot to approach so close. But probably you are right and it's not a photoshop, but an optical illusion. Anyhow, that was not the point. The point was that Sirotnikov said: the newspaper images are not faked. and brought an image that cleary contradicts with his newspapers's article (the article said about two typhoons, and the jet on his picture is obvioulsy a Tornado-F3, not a Typhoon).

[Serb]

Originally posted by MarkG


For step down he must, and he has repeatedly said that he will.

And since he is the man of his word - he will.

And that is where it stayed until two weeks ago, when the odds on either Mr Ivanov or Mr Medvedev becoming Russia's president suddenly lengthened dramatically.

BS. Nothing really changed.

Then, a couple of days later, Mr Putin suggested openly that the obscure Mr Zubkov would be an excellent candidate to replace him as president.

Total bullsh!t. He never said so. Mr. Wingfield-Hayes is just lying here. When asked about is it possible that Zubkov can be a candidate for presidency, Putin answered: Why not? There are several excellent potential candidates and he could be a nice addition to the list.

A week later, Mr Putin suggested that he himself might be a good candidate to become prime minister when he steps down from the presidency next March.

Again - total bullsh!t. At the United Russia party conference, when asked about is it possible that you will become a PM after 2008, Putin answered: I don't mind, but two condition have to be fulfilled: United Russia should win the elections & worthy man should be elected a new president, with whom I could work as a team.

All this has sent Kremlin hacks in to a collective spin, scrambling for an explanation.

BS. Putin explained everything nicely.

We are now asking ourselves why we did not see this coming.

Well, probably that's because you are morons in Russian politics.

In interview after interview he has insisted that, despite his huge popularity, he will follow the Russian constitution, and leave office after his second term.

And he will.

He has carefully nurtured his possible successors, promoting them to higher office, and making sure they got a slice of airtime on state-run television.

Oh boy, who doesn't?

Russia's main newspapers began running large photo spreads of Mr Putin on his summer holidays in Siberia.

The president, 55, was shown in a selection of highly contrived macho poses, astride a Mongolian horse, staring out across the wilderness or with a huge jungle knife at his belt.

But the real show stopper was a shot of a bare-chested Mr Putin, muscles rippling, fishing in a Siberian river.

His heroic poses could have come straight from a Soviet-era propaganda poster.

But to what end? Why did a man who is already hugely popular, and about to step down, need a propaganda boost?

BS.

The only place where I saw those pictures was Apolyton.net. (Thanks to LordShiva )

I expect Mr Putin to be a major force in Russian politics until the 2020s."

No sh!t, Sherlock? (c) David Floyd.
Putin will be a considerable force in a Russian politics when resigns. No doubt about that. But I'm no sure about 2020.

How exactly Mr Putin intends to engineer his continuation in power is still not entirely clear.

See above remark about morons.

He may, as he has suggested, become prime minister.

Unlikely, but probably.

He may anoint the obscure Mr Zubkov as a loyal successor, and meanwhile prepare to make a return as president in four years' time.

That is more probable, but still not very likely.

Either way, Russia's people will cheer him on.

Damn true.

One BBC colleague joked to me recently: "Only the Russians could get rid of the communists, and then invite the secret police back to run the place instead."

And you have to be a Russian and live throught the 90's to understand that this is not a joke at all.

In the 1990's Russia made a brief, chaotic attempt at democracy. It was, by and large, a disaster.

Damn true.

But amid the turmoil it did gain a democratic constitution, free elections, a multitude of political parties, an outspoken media and the beginnings of a civil society.

Bullsh!t. The only truth here is that Russia has a democratic constitution. The rest is a lie.

In his eight years in power Mr Putin has done much to dismantle that fragile infrastructure.

BS.
What he did is introduction of democracy where was only an anarchy before.

Big chunks of the media have been taken back under state control. Opposition parties have been driven out of parliament, some out of existence.

BS. The Russian people drew them out of the parliament nobody else.
(not really surprising after what they've done to that people in 90's).

Elections for the governors of Russia's vast regions have simply been abolished.

Just like in many other democracies where such elections never even existed and with whom you have no problems at all. Including such shining examples of new (CIA sponsored) democracies as Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, etc, etc, etc.

At every stage, the majority of the Russian people have cheered him on, grateful and relieved that their country is once again stable and increasingly prosperous.

That is the most important thing. Putin brought prosperity and stablity. Since he came to office, Russian economy grows (since 2000) in average 7% annually.

By stepping down as President, Mr Putin appears to want to show the outside world that he is sticking absolutely to the letter of the Russian constitution.

And he is.

It is still possible he will hand over power and walk away.

Probably. Why not? But more likely he will stay in the Russian politics. But not as a president, of course.

But there is also a real danger that Russia is now sleepwalking its way back to autocracy.

Oh, yeah

Putin is such a step to autocracy and such a step back comparing to the true democrat Eltsin, who in 1993 thrown tanks to crush the Russian parliament and thus killed hundreds of civilians, just to stay in power.

****ing hypocrites.

for the western media brainwashing machine.

[Kataphraktoi]

Tu-95 is even more an excellent machine

I didnt put the Tu-95 down, dont insult the B-52. Wait, isnt that something you would say?

The point was that Sirotnikov said: the newspaper images are not faked. and brought an image that cleary contradicts with his newspapers's article (the article said about two typhoons, and the jet on his picture is obvioulsy a Tornado-F3, not a Typhoon).

My guess is the newspaper didnt know a tyhpoon from a bumblebee and put up any old shot with a Tu-95 in it.

[Provost Harrison]

Those of you with the photos, bear in mind that if a zoom is used from a distance you will get next to no focus difference between the two objects. The two things may look like they are almost touching but there could be hundreds of metres in depth difference, potentially even kilometres with a powerful enough zoom at distance.