what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Bereta_Eder]

P.S. UN is fine. UN security council is full of NATO so it's a joke.

And everyone has a blocking vote so...

[Bereta_Eder]

You are so ****ing naive.

In order to attack an opposing nation you need to hammer at its foundations.

With the US it's so ****ing easy.

It's an historical accident.


You babble about paranoid and self defeating strategies.

EVERYONE knows about that.

[Serb]

I'm on a night train, and mу phonе just sucks! (c.) Guns and roses.

Well americans are murderes of the peoples.
They like to "hide" behind the "west", a flimsy contruct that excists mainly on their imagination.
Half of that wants them dead and gone.

France, unfortunately had done lots of bad in africa. But I don't understand why she is responsible for saudi arabia?

[The Mad Monk]

Actually no ... before WW1 the world didn't know yet about the horrors of trench warfare.
And to the contrary, everyone before WW1 knew that a war between the major powers in europe (i.e France, Germany, GB) would come sooner or later (just not when and for what reasons) ... and the population of germany (at the beginning of the war) actually was under the impression of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870/1871 where german mobility and superior technology provided a quick victory over the forces of Napoleon III


The belief that WW1 was the war to end all wars only came after WW1

This is just in your ignorant universe. The military minds of that edge knew everything perfectly.

...which of course is why they found it necessary to repeatedly run men over flat terrain into machine gun fire.

That makes perfect sense.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm on a night train, and mу phonе just sucks! (c.) Guns and roses.

You're on Night Train, all right.

[kentonio]

Actually no ... before WW1 the world didn't know yet about the horrors of trench warfare.

Not really accurate to be fair. Trench warfare started to become prominent in many smaller wars in the run-up to WW1, from the end of the ACW, the Maori wars, the second Boer war, the Russo-Japanese war and numerous others. One of the tragedies of WW1 was that major military leaders apparently hadn't learned the lessons that were right there to be studied. It didn't take a genius to work out that frontal infantry charges into machine guns and modern artillery were obsolete and stupidly wasteful, it was practically criminal that they threw away thousands of lives 'discovering' it.

[Ellestar]

I find it interesting how crazy for (a potential nuclear) war our russian posters are.
In contrast to all western posters.

Could allow us to draw conclusions who is under the influence of propaganda
(also reminds me of the war happiness of german soldiers in WW1 (that is, when the war started and they didn't know that most of them would perish in trenches))

That's not what we want to say. Unfortunately, your leaders think that if they will apply enough force, Russia will choose to surrender. But Russia is not France that surrendered after losing 100k soldiers, while Russia continued to fight after losing all army. And just about any war in Napoleon times and earlier ended with a loss of a capital, but Russia didn't surrender with the loss of Moscow.

So your leaders think they can do anything to Russia because it's crazy to start a nuclear war, while we think your leaders are doing crazy things because they're risking to start a nuclear war over some issues that shouldn't even concern them.

Llike, seriously, why it's so important for NATO to destroy our longstanding ally Syria, that you threaten to start WW3 over it? I don't understand why NATO thinks we should be first to back down. It's our ally, not yours. In meantime, NATO has enough problems to fix in Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

But no, NATO already shoot down our warplane, and bombed Syrian forces so to help ISIS just after committing to a ceasefire. That's beside arming and supplying terrorists in Syria, the thing that become a norm in our crazy world. So NATO continues to escalate things.

[Ellestar]

In meantime, NATO has enough problems to fix in Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry, i forgot Ukraine. Under guidance of USA politics who personally came to Ukrainian Euromaidan to guide democratic ukrainian people to do a coup (that's Nuland and Mc'Cain)


In less than 3 years Ukraine reached new lows: mid-Africa level of GDP per capita. Ukraine had like 40% of USSR heavy industry i think. 30% for sure. But it seems that nothing can save a country if it signs EU Associative Agreement and let USA politicians guide it's internal politics.

So, until you fix these four countries (if you already forgot, Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine), just crawl away from Syria in some ****hole and stay there. And don't forget to tell your ally Saudi Arabia to stop destroying Yemen.

[Giancarlo]

Yes. You heard it. The West does everything wrong and Russia does everything right (including bombing children). Cry me a river.

[kentonio]

That's not what we want to say. Unfortunately, your leaders think that if they will apply enough force, Russia will choose to surrender. But Russia is not France that surrendered after losing 100k soldiers, while Russia continued to fight after losing all army. And just about any war in Napoleon times and earlier ended with a loss of a capital, but Russia didn't surrender with the loss of Moscow.

This is stupid nationalism that causes many of your problems. Russians are not superior, braver, more resiliant human beings than anyone else, you've had your victories and your defeats like every other country. France kicked the crap out of you in the past, as did the Japanese and even the Finns gave you a bloody nose. Equally you had amazing victories in times of huge adversity. If you could have pride in those without this myth of the superhuman Russian who never surrenders, you might also understand our position for once.

So your leaders think they can do anything to Russia because it's crazy to start a nuclear war, while we think your leaders are doing crazy things because they're risking to start a nuclear war over some issues that shouldn't even concern them.

Llike, seriously, why it's so important for NATO to destroy our longstanding ally Syria, that you threaten to start WW3 over it? I don't understand why NATO thinks we should be first to back down. It's our ally, not yours. In meantime, NATO has enough problems to fix in Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

But no, NATO already shoot down our warplane, and bombed Syrian forces so to help ISIS just after committing to a ceasefire. That's beside arming and supplying terrorists in Syria, the thing that become a norm in our crazy world. So NATO continues to escalate things.

Setting aside the paranoia about what the evil west is doing to Russia (seriously, what are we doing? After the fall of communism the west could have done a lot to Russia, but instead you've re-emerged as a strong state again with little Western interference), why would the interests of many strong states be considered less important than yours? You lost your superpower status, and have not yet achieved enough strength to get it back. So now you're hiding behind your nucear weapons, pretending you can act like the old Soviet Union without the political and military strength that gave the USSR that kind of power. You want to know why we think you're crazy, that's largely it.

As for Syria, why are you trying to protect a state that used chemical weapons against its own people? Is that the kind of allies the new Russia wants? What's next, are you going to stand up and act as defenders of North Korea too?

[Ellestar]

As for Syria, why are you trying to protect a state that used chemical weapons against its own people? Is that the kind of allies the new Russia wants? What's next, are you going to stand up and act as defenders of North Korea too?

Actually, it was proven to be just another false flag operation by your own investigators. And NATO, as usual, used a false flag operation to attack other countries, fund terrorists, impose sanctions and do other despicable things.

Setting aside the paranoia about what the evil west is doing to Russia (seriously, what are we doing? After the fall of communism the west could have done a lot to Russia, but instead you've re-emerged as a strong state again with little Western interference), why would the interests of many strong states be considered less important than yours? You lost your superpower status, and have not yet achieved enough strength to get it back. So now you're hiding behind your nucear weapons, pretending you can act like the old Soviet Union without the political and military strength that gave the USSR that kind of power. You want to know why we think you're crazy, that's largely it.

So, if NATO is interested in destroying our ally, we should just let NATO do it? What kind of logic is that, anyway? Whatever, just don't whine about "evil Russia" after you'll start WW3.

[Ellestar]

What's next, are you going to stand up and act as defenders of North Korea too?

And about that. NATO stands up as defenders of USA aggressions. USA actually attacks other countries and finances terrorists, and North Korea doesn't. So, propaganda aside, it's obvious that USA is worse than North Korea.

Also, NATO stands up and defends Saudi Arabia that invaded Yemen.

So, what's your point if you already defend regimes not better than North Korea?

[Ellestar]

But let's say you're too brainwashed to realize that USA is one of the biggest evils in the world.

Fine. What about Saudi Arabia? It's the worst kind of feudal-era dictatorship. They're known to be one of the biggest supporters and suppliers of terrorists in the world (together with USA and Oman). Their people did 9/11. They're fighting an offensive war in Yemen for three years. And yet, they're best allies of NATO. Hmm?

[Ellestar]

And about NATO false flag operations

American F/A-18's painted to match the paint schemes of Russian jets in Syria (4 days ago)

[BeBMan]

CIA model builders anticipated conflict with Russia over Syria in 2005:

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/has/build_has_00625.shtml