I can't believe that you people actually compare Russia to Eu. Russia is a cripple country who had allot of luck in ww2, and it had access at some western technology. You comparing a monkey state, with the first economic block of this world, which above that is allied to the second economic block.
Do you actually know what are you talking about ?
This message has been edited by 7castle on Jun 1, 2008 5:39 PM
The EU isnt a country and its a pretty piss poor excuse for an "alliance." Russia has completely different relations with France than it does with Poland. So whatever aggregate power the EU thinks it has it certainly isnt able to utilize against Russia when such a situation exists. As long as the French, Germans and Italians are friends with Russia it makes no difference to Russia what the likes of Poland and Lithuania say or do. Russia is certainly stronger than any of the EU powers taken by themselves.
filin, you should take care of your pimples, before talking matters that you obviously can't understand.
You Russians don't be so proud cause you are proud for nothing. Americans saved your asses in ww2 so say thanks..and about your "union"... what union dude, where is it ?
And about cutting energy and stuff..stay cool, there is always the middle east and by doing that, Russia will sell oil to ......none ? Who will die of hunger then ? You ****ing retards... how little understanding you have about anything.
I do not intend to offend anyone personally or nationally but Romania just recently "joined" the Amerigo controlled alliance and they tend to give lots of "candies" to new members to "sweeten" them up ....
It happened to most European (western block) nations after WWII, and they did the same, but the last few years (and after more than half a century of love-hate affair), EU started shifting from the control and dependance of the Amerigos (thing that started to slightly piss them off) and are looking at self sustaining and/or good neighbor relations...
In short, all those papers, text, studies, etc that want to portray EU as geostrategic and economical enemy of Russia are plain Amerigo bull$hit to try and undermine the good will of the old continent.... Europe is actively seeking to collaborate with Russia in various sectors more and more every year and the Amerigos fear that the most.....
That is why Amerigos NEVER have talks with the EU directly but prefer the indirect approach of bilateral talks/agreements (especialy to the ex-communist countries) .
britian has second rate status like Puerto Rico... u see like puerto rico they just get used to fight americas dirty wars...and recieve nothing in return...
threadstarter must also learn this,
Russia has more nuclear bombs than ALL western countries.
Europe still needs Russia for space ventures.
Europeans are homosexual more and more.
they all want to lead their continent (big country german frenchs italians british)
just facts.
In America we don't get minorities to fight for us, as we are an all-volunteer force.
While native Americans enlist enlist more often than whites, Asians enlist less often. Look at the Ratios.
Russia along with USA was one of the two lone superpowers in the whole cold war , it was far ahead of any other country same as the USA , including EU.
Now since the 90's Russian economy crippled and they had 2 decades of hard times , the EU in the meanwhile is a risting power , though still after 2 decades of horrible times and a rise of EU the Russians still have more nuclear weapons ( FAR MORE ) , more aircraft , more tanks , armored vehicles , soldiers , while they lack in the naval department except submarines , they are still equal or far ahead in almost all tehnology ( If you don't count Germany in the EU ) , then last but not least EU is 27 country's together , its not 1 country , that alone speaks itself for what a powerhouse Russia has once been , look where USA is in tehnology and power , its far far ahead of EU at this present , if not for the USA tehnological sharing with some european country's they would even be further ahead , if not for economic crisis in 90's Russia would have been close to USA in tehnology atm , some better some lacking.
Now to explain it more theraly , EU is a rising superpower and our economic and manpower is amazing and HOPEFULLY ( at least I hope so ) it will maximise this and become a real superpower , at the moment there is good progress but not good enough imho due to stupid budget cuts.
One more thing , even tho I said Russia has more tanks and aircraft which is true I did not claim it is more capable and effective than we are , I said to have such big forces and such tehnological parity after 2 decades of very hard times alone speaks of them ..
Remember EU is 27 country's its unfair to even compare if we are comparing country's.
So bssicaly what im trying to say is Russia is FAR less powerfull than once , yet it is still the 2nd most powerfull if compared by country vs country and it is DEFINATLY not a CRIPPLED POOR 3rd world COUNTRY.
Eventually both Russia and the USA are going to realize that other countries have populations that are too large for the US and Russia to exert as much influence as we like when we are separate. Look at China's growth rate and India will probably get going sometime in the next 50 years. How can countries of 200 or 300 million people compete in a world of 1 billion+ countries? Once we outgrow(literally, wait for them to die off) our irrational hatred of each other we should realize we would make much better allies than enemies. Think of it this way: today's 50 year old politicians were born in the 1960s and grew up during the height of the cold war. Thats bound to be affecting their judgment, and think what Lockheed-Sukhoi could make together.
5ThGuard,altough i agree whit some points of your post(not all)....you need to anderstand that Russia wasent always the bigest nation and USA started as several states uniting and becomming one.....So i dont see why Eu cant unite and becomme one also.....after all Europeans have much incommon with the exeption of language........Eu tru its hystory went several times to partial unification and reunificatons,form Charlemagne,Roman Empire,Holy Roman Empire and so on.....
==============================================================================================
As for Russia!(wich is not USSR)
USSR had once a migty military industrial base....but that base consumed 25% of USSR,s GDP and eavn extanded further to include whole Warshaw Pact........that resulted in massive consumer goods shortages and poverty......Today Russia can newer afford that.Thats why large nummmbers of those military complexes were shut down or rusting....only the most modern and the knowhow are/is kept by the Russians.Of Course,Certanly Russia will play a immportant role in the future,but it will be more a role similar to the Zarist Russia but not that of USSR-and Warshaw Pact,by any means!
==============================================================================================
As for EU!!
I strongly bolive that EU will becomme world future Hyperpower...surpasing eavn USA...not just because of its stratigical location,or large population and GDP,but cus its tradition and influence.Its just a question of time and going the way/direction its going now...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 4, 2008 5:28 AM
Romania has nothing which can even distantly be compared with Russia (even the prostitutes are more beautiful in Russia)
Plus, Russia is a $2 trillion+ GDP-PPP economy, has a massive fleet of nuclear submarines, and has more nuclear warheads (and ballistic missiles to deliver them) than the rest of the world combined.
Plus, the Russians have the scientific/technological know-how to build space stations, space rockets, space shuttles, etc.; while Romania is busy sending Roma immigrants to western Europe.
I think the EU membership of Romania and Bulgaria significantly lowered the quality and prestige of this once exclusive block. The same case is valid for NATO.
Romania in EU will grow, actually and EU will grow with us. The EU membership, for us, was more political and Romania can grow without EU but EU can't, without Romania and expansion. Soon EU will be much like a federation.
You tell me about Russia, like you, were very close with it, for 50 years. You moron, i know Russian technology, allot more than you do, so don't try to tell me anything. We had Russian technology and still have and we had cosmonauts into space, with Russians. So, Mohamed, **** off.
I just say , that Russians make a big mistake, by not being closer to EU. A smart move for them would be to join it and stop acting like USSR (like peasants).
Quote:Romania in EU will grow, actually and EU will grow with us. The EU membership, for us, was more political and Romania can grow without EU but EU can't, without Romania and expansion.
Someone whould ban that 7castle , btw Veles I didn't say EU can't become a superpower , I said that I don't agree how we are doing it , too slow and to much budget cuts.
someone should ban you, and other dumb kids around.
or someone should make you a kids forum, where you can discuss about robot soldier dolls, barbi dolls and pipmles !
nappyheadedHO (Login MuRaT84) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: Russia and it's..."power".
June 5 2008, 1:43 AM
"Romania can grow without EU but EU can't"
EU cant live without prostitutes?
--
This message has been edited by MuRaT84 on Jun 5, 2008 1:43 AM
someone should ban you, and other dumb kids around.
or someone should make you a kids forum, where you can discuss about robot soldier dolls, barbi dolls and pipmles !
Tell me
- How old are you?
- Your military rank?
- Years of service?
- Your combat experience?
btw Veles I didn't say EU can't become a superpower , I said that I don't agree how we are doing it , too slow and to much budget cuts.
=============================================================================================
You are corect 5ThGuard,i agree.......
But we mass not forget that its not that easy to becomme Superpower overnight.....
If Eu(for some reason) desides to becomme overnight a Superpower,it will certanly make the world(especialy USA and Russia suspicios).Russia would feal treathend by such a enormous power right on her Doorstep and USA would fear for its Global Dominance,,,,,,in fact USA is already fearing that!Precisly cus Eu seems less of a treath and many smaler nations trust in the EU.......The fact
that Today Eu has more support than USA echoes too.....
============================================================================================
So for Eu its good to take 1 step at the time and awoid making enemies.To be a Superpower you
need the Worlds trust,,,If you apear less agressive you have a bigger chance.....But if you
make enemies you will becomme isolated and allone.And a lone Superpower cant surivive,,,,,,,
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 5, 2008 11:50 PM
Based on that evaluation I know how much you know , if you are older , more experienced , if you are a military professional with alot of years of service then I KNOW that you know alot , but I know you don't know anything based on your posts thats why I asked this question because you can either answer it and make a fool out of yourself or you can be quiet and not answer it like you are now and make less of a fool out of yourself , good day.
Quote:Based on that evaluation I know how much you know , if you are older , more experienced , if you are a military professional with alot of years of service then I KNOW that you know alot , but I know you don't know anything based on your posts thats why I asked this question because you can either answer it and make a fool out of yourself or you can be quiet and not answer it like you are now and make less of a fool out of yourself , good day.
You mean that only the ones who have had military training have the right to express their geopolitical opinion?
5thGuard.....i was writing about a hypothetical scenario...
Btw,you are corect about Military profesionals having bether inside knowledge...
dosent have to be always the case.....but mostly it is.....
Also...ewer since Peter the Great Russia was a Global power...and that wont change in
the future........And as for Eu....well we been dominat since Centurys...but Cold war
had weeken Eu....and that of course is history...so Eu has potential to be vary strong Superpower.
The Geographical location of the Eu allone is significant enugh...not to mention other things....
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 6, 2008 11:47 PM This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 6, 2008 11:41 PM This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 6, 2008 11:37 PM
you morons. the army is only the creation of some smart people imagination and ,the military success, on macro scale is driven by economy.
I'm a innovator in this world, not a follower.
People who serve the army are usually dumb and they don't know ****, no more than what they learn.
I know about army people, more than they know about themselves and when i say something i say it cause i know it.
and FEofRus
What's with Antonescu ? Suddenly Russians are affraid of Romania ?
Antonescu attacked Russia cause of your Stalin started it.
What they tell you at school dude ? That we are evil ? We wanted to kill the Russian people so we are evil and you need troops in transnistria cause we are all so evil ? that's bull****. Some people really live in the past ....is that a form of retardation ?
Quote:No but a military professional will know a hell of a lot more about warfare and weaponry than someone who just finished high school.
I can agree with that but take notice that this forum is not reserved for military analysts . People can and have the right to express their views (even if its total BS)
Quote:...People who serve the army are usually dumb and they don't know ****, no more than what they learn.
I know about army people, more than they know about themselves and when i say something i say it cause i know it....
Only by saying this proves to everybody that you know NIL about military and especially for people who served or serving it.
according to history our enemy was
1 Mongols
2 Sweden
3 Otomans
4 France
5 Germany
6 USA/NATO
as you can see-Romania not in the list . ( we all knew how last time You've betrated NAZI Germany exactly ontime,in 1944 and saved your ass from corporal punishment hehe)
------
PS i dont care you "evil" or Chauchesku cousin,really - in Odessa city (1986-91) me usually heard alot of joks how Moldovians do things (similar to how brits kidding the French ).Thats all.
And BTW what your Romania did to the jews/gipsy in that city- i saw in Historical Museum of Odessa .Is that the way how pay back to Stalin for Bessarabia? weird
PPS hello from "monkey state" and Dumitru Dorin Prunariu ( 1981 )
AHERON
what i say there is generally true. those people live in their own world. they don't have a global view, just doctrines and templates of comportment.
FEofRus
well, is not the time for you to talk about what we did to the jews, when your people made genocide over and over again in Crimea, for instance, like in many other regions, including Moldova. Genocide, by deporting people in Siberia. Everyone knows the truth about it and everyone knows that as a regime, country, however you want to call it, Russia made the biggest crimes through history. Massacres against their own people and against nations/nationalities, around them.
And well, we didn't actually betrayed Germany. We actually saved the lives of over 400 000 Germans and probably and equal number of Russians and Romanians, when the war was clearly won by the Allies. So, it was a logical thing to do, cause we are not criminals, to let people kill each other, for the sake of Hitler.
And well, about Basarabia... that made us to attack Russia in the first place, otherwise we had no reason to do it. Stalin started it, but Romania is not Georgia. And now, what's the reason for what Russians do in Transnistria ? You know, that's why we allowed Americans to make a base on the Black Sea. Cause your "leaders" are as stupid as hell, dude. A bunch of peasants... Americanski ..black sea...niet! I are on the transnistria me is strong and me scares everyone. the small ones is my enemy ..i good , they bad. and so on.
Quote:AHERON
what i say there is generally true. those people live in their own world. they don't have a global view, just doctrines and templates of comportment.
Sorry to burst your bubble but ..... except my military service in various regions and the fact that almost all my life Ive spend it in military circles (due to the fact that my father is in the high command of the army), do you really think I should not participate in subjects of military-geostrategical content?
yes, we can all discuss anything. i have relatives and a lot of friends involved in the army too.
but we'll have different points of view . and a problem seen from outside is always better observed.
I can't believe that you people actually compare Russia to Eu. Russia is a cripple country who had allot of luck in ww2, and it had access at some western technology. You comparing a monkey state, with the first economic block of this world, which above that is allied to the second economic block.
Do you actually know what are you talking about ?
You said enough to make a complete and uther fool out of yourself , don't make a idiot out of yourself aswell.
"lol, hush up before we cut of your energy supply and turn you into medieval apes."
Commie boy turn off your oil and gas if you want to my country "Scotland" as my country has plenty of oil and Gas and when we break away from the UK you ex commie c-unts will continue to live in a 3rd world country
This message has been edited by killiebrad on Jun 7, 2008 8:38 PM
that pipeline is to england ... we have far more oil and gas off the west coast of Scotland which will be tapped after we reclaim our sovereignty as we will have no use for the faslane base
Albannach, you dumb sweaty sock all that oil you have and your little country still needs to be subsidised from england every year, who do you think pays for your students to have free places at uni, better priced perscription prices than we have, i for one has a brit would like us to stick together but if we did break up i think you are to stupid to understand the end result, we would be better of to the tune of 20-30 billion a year without you, so please next time you post a message ask your mum and dad first you silly little boy
Albannach you make me laugh, you have no idea, but if we do break and we can seperate then i konw we in england will mot be happy to see a close ally go, but with thick pricks like you maybe not such a bad lose after all.
answer me this then Warren why is North sea oil 95% in Scottish waters included in the UK GDP and not the Scottish ... worth Ł40 billion a year to the UK Goverment why is 505 of North sea gas included in the UK GDP and not the Scottish GDP worth Ł5 Billion a year when it is clearly in Scottish waters .... and why is Scottish Whisky included in the UK GDP worth Ł5 Billion a year and not in the Scottish GDP .... i will tell you why it was to continue the lie that Scots were subsidised and not the other way around ... ask your local MP he knows the truth
dude, you can talk whatever you want but you must know that the army people are not great thinkers.
5thguards, you don't know what you are talking about. if you are scared of something, you are scared cause you don't know anything about it. and you look a bit scared and impressed of something.
don't be impressed by peasants.
Quote:dude, you can talk whatever you want but you must know that the army people are not great thinkers.
Oh boy!... I bet you didnt read what I wrote...
I know what and how military ppl think cause I was raised in a military family and served the army myself..
I bet you have not been in the military...
And to add to that, more than half of military analysis comes from the military ...
5thguards, you don't know what you are talking about. if you are scared of something, you are scared cause you don't know anything about it. and you look a bit scared and impressed of something.
don't be impressed by peasants.
No im not impressed by idiots therefor you fair , sorry but thanks for playing.
Lets compare them to the UK because the UK is a very capable western country that nobody will disagree with and probably the 3rd most capable overall still.
Alright here we go poseur boy
-You say Russia is a 3rd world weak useless country yet it has over 10,000 nuclear weapons while for example UK has around 200.
-You say Russia is a 3rd world weak useless country yet it has over 1,037,000 active personel while the UK has 195,000 , and if your gonna say conscripts are poorly trained then I should mention that 30% of the personel are contracts , soldiers with contracts that are very well trained , 30% out of 1,037,000 I think is around 300,000 right?
-You say Russia is a 3rd world weak useless country yet I can mention tehnology that surpasses the one of UK , here are just some :
1. Small arms
2. Anti air defence ( S-400 , S-300 , Tunguska , Tor-M .. )
3. Armor ( T-95 in development , T-90 is fairly comparable to Challanger II , BTR-90 , BMP-3 )
4. Artillery and Rocket Forces ( MSTA-S , Smerch , )
5. Ballistic missile systems ( Iskander , SS-21 )
6. Airborne troops ( VDV )
7. Special forces ( SAS is more cunning and has better tactics , Spetsnaz is more phisical trained and brutaly trained , il give this to the SAS yet they are in far lower numbers. )
Now thats roughly everything on the ground aint it? Besides the RUssians having a lot more than the brits...
Now lets go to air shall we
1.Strategic bombers ( Tu-160 , Tu-95 , Tu-22M3 the UK none)
2.Tank hunters ground aircraft ( Su-25 )
3.Ground attack aircraft ( Su-24 , Su-34 .. yep F-35 is great yet it has yet to come in service then it will be better in this area )
4.Fighters ( Su-35 , Su-30 , Su-27 and Mig-31 which can intercept AWACS from 250km+ , the UK has Eurofighter which is a great fighter yet it is in low numbers plus the Russian air to air missiles are better atm plus they have Mig-31 which can destroy AWACS )
5.Transport aircraft ( The russians not only have alot more they can also carry alot more )
6.Attack Helicopters ( Mi-24 , Mi-28 , Ka-50 .. no comparison at all )
7.AWACS ( UK has more capable AWACS yet its in lower numbers )
8.Reiconassanse ( There is no comparison here Mig-25 , Tu-142 , Sattelites , the UK is not even close )
9. air to air missiles ( The russians have a advantage here , the mdba meteor is still not complete )
10. air to ground weaponry ( overall the brits have a advantage here )
11. Transport heli ( Mi-26 ... )
Now lets go to sea shall we?
1. Aircraft carriers ( Invincible vs Kuznetsov? No challenge , the kuznetsov iz practicaly a cruiser with Su-33 while Invincible has harriers. )
2. Cruisers ( Kirov and Slava , the UK none )
3. Destroyers ( Both have crap destroyers overall , decent at best with flaws )
4. Submarines attack (Upgraded Akula and those SSK can rip the UK subs apart , the Astute is a great sub but not in service yet )
5. Submarines SSGN ( Oscar II the UK none )
6. Submarines SSBN ( No question here right I don't need to even comment on it )
7. Aviation marine force ( Tu-22M3 , Tu-142 there is no comparison here aswell )
8. Anti ship missiles ( No question here Granit , Yakhont , BrahMos )
So as you see there is hardly anything in the British army that has better tehnology as the Russians do besides the fact that the Russians have A LOT more , now for a country who is supposed to be weak , uncapable , 3rd world weakling paper tiger that kinda doesn't make sense , I don't know really there is something weird about this isn't it?
Btw to the BRITISH people that read this , this is by no means a statement that means that Russia could invade UK and its so much stronger , far from it , this is just a direct comparison of the equipment since this moron is claiming that Russia is a weak 3rd world country.
Now to the fact that Russia had luck to win WW2 with western tehnology , that is the most ridicilous statement I ever heard in MY LIFE.
I could write this 2 pages but im already bored having to explain something to such a moron so il write it in very short facts
-Soviet Union in WW2 destroyed almost 3/4 OF ALL GERMAN DIVISIONS!!!
-Soviet Union DESIGNED T-34 which was the world war 2's overall best tank , they designed Katyusha the amazing tehnology feat in WW2 a rocket launcher which germans feared the most , they designed heavy tanks such as IS series which were fearsome , the fact that you dare to claim that Soviet Union won WW2 because of western tehnology THAT MAKES YOU A COMPLETE IDIOT and someone who knows NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING in WW2 , its not nice to insult someone on forums but you trully are a COMPLETE IDIOT.
This message has been edited by 5thGuards on Jun 8, 2008 1:14 PM
5thGuard,you make some points,but you also missed some points........
===========================================================================================
As for Sovets desryoing 2/3,s of German divisions,we can also mention Viasma,Kiev,Smolensk
where the Soviet army went down from 5.5 Million to 200.000 and barly 190 working Tanks.
One can counter always to someones point in this Scenario...so its a pointless debate
===========================================================================================
SO!I,l just say this! Without West there would be a stalmate Betwen Germany and USSR...at Best.
That my opinion.....and we dont need to argue about this.
===========================================================================================
And as for World War 2 technology.Well,thats well documented who had the edge,,,wont go there.
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 8, 2008 11:10 PM
5thGuard,you make some points,but you also missed some points........
As for Sovets desryoing 2/3,s of German divisions,we can also mention Viasma,Kiev,Smolensk
where the Soviet army went down from 5.5 Million to 200.000 and barly 190 working Tanks.
One can counter always to someones point in this Scenario...so its a pointless debate
Yes but the major of the forces were encircled and surrendered , though yes true they lost a lot of forces during the start of the war due to not beeing prepared for the germans yet and having bad rusty and ineffective equipment against the wehrmaht , though Germany during 1943-1945 when the soviet economy and production and tehnology went up fast started loosing most battles with 2:1 loss rate in favour of the soviet union , so one must not dismiss also the effective and good quality of the red army during WW2.
SO!I,l just say this! Without West there would be a stalmate Betwen Germany and USSR...at Best.
That my opinion.....and we dont need to argue about this.
Without Germany attacking the west they could absolutely focus all their forces towards the soviet union but thats not what happened , germany during WW2 was tehnologicaly and strategicaly and tacticaly at a huge advantage over anyone , at least in the first years of war.
And as for World War 2 technology.Well,thats well documented who had the edge,,,wont go there.
We certainly know who and it aint USA or the Soviet Union, my point was that USSR had some great tehnological feats during the war and its ridicilous to say the US was superior and the superior tehnology of the US helped them win the war , what superior tehnology trucks?
5ThGuard
In That respect i agree.....Soviets build ther tank forces and the T34 from scrach.....eavn
the German were shocked how good sovets were in transfering whole industry to the Urals and
designing such a state of the art Tank like the T34...
==========================================================================================
But again without large logistical input from Usa ,Sovites couldew not won.....face it
Its a trmendoues undertaking to move such a large tank forces without US logistical imput like
trucks,trains and locomotivs....
==========================================================================================
As for Germany and its army being more advanced than anyone in the begining,Yes but dont forget
that Germany had only 3-4 Years to prepare and were ready only to fight a Short War,,,,
Son of the Heinz Guderian sayd it best:Germany was preapred to fight poland,but not a full
European War,,,,or yet allone a World War!You mass take this into the account 5ThGuard!
So Germany wasent fully ready eighter and on top of that they had losses and mechanical
dificutlys in Western Theather,,,So to take on Soviets in such state was a huge mistake made
by Hitler....Germany simply needed more time to gear up and fully mobilise!
Heck,Germany wasent eavn fully mobilised until 1943.....So this tells alout about the prelude
of the War!And as for casualty ratio.....well i wont argue about it...Statistics proven it!
===========================================================================================
Like i sayd...Without West,,,USSR and Germany wouldew boged them selfs down and soon or later
a peace wouldew been declared....They just didnt had the strenght to win over the other....
This is not just my opinion.but also of several good Authors i read from.......
But i doo agree on some points with you...And again this is just my opinion...i dont mean to
argue with anybody here...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 9, 2008 4:36 AM
You made a list of only weapons..... yes dude, that's a great power
A country can't live only from weapons and oil exports, or at least not for much and a country can't and won't be respected for their destruction power. Is easy to destroy, but infinitely harder to actually build something. And look at Russians... what do they actually build ? Ne technologies ? Your computer ? Plasma screens ? Something smart ?.... no, they just take the oil out of soil and sell it, just like 100 years ago and build weapons to defend their poverty and bad taste.
And besides that, look at statistics... those weapons are easily destroyed by Americans or Israelis. Imagine Europeans, Japanese and even Chinese, shooting at them... sitting ducks.
You made a list of only weapons..... yes dude, that's a great power
A country can't live only from weapons and oil exports, or at least not for much and a country can't and won't be respected for their destruction power. Is easy to destroy, but infinitely harder to actually build something. And look at Russians... what do they actually build ? Ne technologies ? Your computer ? Plasma screens ? Something smart ?.... no, they just take the oil out of soil and sell it, just like 100 years ago and build weapons to defend their poverty and bad taste.
And besides that, look at statistics... those weapons are easily destroyed by Americans or Israelis. Imagine Europeans, Japanese and even Chinese, shooting at them... sitting ducks.
First of all what the hell are you talking about , your the one that said that Russia is weak , what else do you mean by weak if not military , grain products??
And no those weapons are not easly destroyed , there are no such statistic available because they never fought retard, what war exactly did you see T-90 , Smerch , Tunguska , S-300 , S-400 , Buratino , new BDR's BMP's , russian contracts , VDV , Spetsnaz , Mig-31 , Su-30 series , Mig-29 ( with AWACS and modern A-A missiles ) , Tu-160 , Tu-95 , Tu-22M3 .... the list goes on , where in the world did you EVER see those weapons against ANY american or israel or european country , my god your just blabbing some random crap , and I already told you how some weapons are even superior to the ones US has , if you don't call that advanced tehnology then I seriusly don't know what the hell you call that.
you talk like military people
power of a nation doesn't stands in it's weapons
that is what kids think.
look at USA, is strong in the first place cause it attracts a lot of smart people and is economically very powerful. It produces the highest technologies of this planet and does allot of research. USA doesn't sell oil and pretends to be rich, instead it produces technology in any form and yes, A LOT of food, actually. And yes, grains make you strong if you know how to use them.
The number of airplanes doesn't mean nothing, your people won't live better, only cause you have some airplanes. Everyone has. That's schizophrenia .
The failure of USSR should explain what i try to tell you.
And again, about those weapons you enumerate there. They all were destroyed over and over again in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Serbia and wherever the Americans or Israelis in this cases, found them, with minimal or no losses. What can we say... good quality .. the best.
This message has been edited by 7castle on Jun 9, 2008 3:46 PM This message has been edited by 7castle on Jun 9, 2008 3:45 PM This message has been edited by 7castle on Jun 9, 2008 3:43 PM
you talk like military people
power of a nation doesn't stands in it's weapons
that is what kids think.
look at USA, is strong in the first place cause it attracts a lot of smart people and is economically very powerful. It produces the highest technologies of this planet and does allot of research. USA doesn't sell oil and pretends to be rich, instead it produces technology in any form and yes, A LOT of food, actually. And yes, grains make you strong if you know how to use them.
The number of airplanes doesn't mean nothing, your people won't live better, only cause you have some airplanes. Everyone has. That's schizophrenia .
The failure of USSR should explain what i try to tell you.
Then you obviusly don't know Russia at all , it has the fastest rising economy in G7 besides that the infastructure and living of people have went up substantialy under putin , you know nothing boy..
And again, about those weapons you enumerate there. They all were destroyed over and over again in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Serbia and wherever the Americans or Israelis in this cases, found them, with minimal or no losses. What can we say... good quality .. the best.
LOL .... you are a IDIOT
Tell me ONE CASE , ONE SINGLE CASE OF ANY WEAPON I JUST MENTIONED IN MY BEFORE POST THAT WAS EVER DESTROYED BY ANY AMERICAN OR ISRAEL WEAPON OR EVER APPEARED IN IRAQ , SYRIA OR SERBIA ( EXCEPT OUTDATED MIG-29 WITH 20 YEARS OLD AIR TO AIR MISSILES AND NO AWACS ) , my god you are a TRUE IDIOT , a RETARD with IQ lower than my dog.
you are a ****ing loser or a dumb kid.
look at the history, you RETARD search on every site, search on google and clean your dumb head from that radiating stupidity.
And dude, don't talk about IQ, cause even the term is so much over you. Insult your mother, instead of me, cause she created such a loser.
Is not my fault cause i try to make you think further and you just can't.
This message has been edited by 7castle on Jun 9, 2008 10:05 PM
5ThGuard ,Thats true,Russia is growing fast....but it is immposible to predict to what level it will rise in the future.....you need to admit that!
==============================================================
5th Guard's guide of Russian equipment combat operational history for complete retarted idiots
Tu-160
Operational history
Deployment
The Tu-160 was first presented to the public on a parade in 1989. In 1989–1990 it also set 44 world speed flight records in its weight class. Squadron deployments to Long Range Aviation began in April 1987. Until 1991 19 of those aircraft served in the 184th Guards Heavy Bomber Regiment in Pryluky in the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, replacing Tu-16 'Badger' and Tu-22M3 'Backfire' aircraft. After the fall of the Soviet Union those aircraft became Ukrainian property, although in 1999 a deal between Russia and Ukraine led to eight of those aircraft being returned to Russia in exchange for a reduction in Ukraine's energy debts. Ukraine, which gave up nuclear weapons as part of the collapse of USSR, has destroyed the other Blackjacks in its possession, except for one airframe retained for static display.
Russia's second Tu-160 unit, the 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Regiment basing in Engels, was organised in 1992, but by 1994 it had received only six aircraft. Between 1999 and 2000 the eight formerly Ukrainian planes were assigned to the regiment, with another being completed in a factory and given to the regiment in 2000. At least one aircraft has been lost, during a test flight after engine repairs, on 18 September 2003.
There were 14 Tu-160s in service as of November 2005. Another two new-built aircraft are nearing completion at the Kazan Aircraft Plant, one of which was planned for entry into service in March 2006, with the other following later in the year.
As of 2001, six additional Tu-160 served as experimental aircraft at Zhukovski, four of them remaining airworthy. It is planned to complete two more in 2007 and raise the total number of active aircraft to 30 by 2012.
On 30 December 2005, under an order signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Tu-160 officially entered service in the VVS.
On August 17, 2007 it was announced by President Vladimir Putin that Russia was resuming the strategic aviation flights stopped in 1991, sending its bomber aircraft on long-range patrols. On December 25, 2007, two Blackjacks came close to Danish airspace. Two Danish Airforce F-16:s scrambled to intercept and identify them[6].
According to Russian government sources, on September 11, 2007, a Tu-160 was apparently used to drop the massive fuel-air explosive device, the Father of all bombs, for its first ever field-test. [1]
On 28 December 2007 it was reported that one new Tu-160 had been completed at the Kazan Aviation Plant. It is now involved in different test flights and will join the Russian Air Force in 2008. The report also quotes a representative of the Air Forces as saying that the long-term armament program includes plans for producing one new Tu-160 aircraft every 1-2 years in order to bring the total number of bombers of this class to 30 by 2025-2030. [7]
On 22 January 2008, two Russian Tu-160 were intercepted by Norwegian and RAF fighter jets on their way to the Bay of Biscay.[citation needed]
Modernization
In 2006, the Russian Airforce was expected to receive five modernized and another newly produced Tu-160 [8]. The Russian Airforce will further receive five modernized Tu-160s each year [9], which means modernization of the fleet may be complete within three years if the schedule is kept up.
Changes announced as follows:
* completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics
* full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system
* updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability. [9]
* ability to operate new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-555). [10]
* ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites [11]
* ability to bear laser-guided bombs [12]
* advanced radar emissions absorbing covering [13]
Army General Vladimir Mikhailov said in January 2007 that every three years the VVS would receive two new Tu-160s, and would start a new program to upgrade the avionics on its current fleet of 16 bombers.[14]
Tu-22M3 Backfire
Service
During the Cold War, the Tu-22M was operated by the VVS (Soviet Air Force) in a strategic bombing role, and by the AVMF (Aviatsiya Voyenno-Morskogo Flota, Soviet Naval Aviation) in a long-range maritime anti-shipping role. The United States was highly concerned about the threat that this new bomber posed. By 1982 fewer than 200 had been built. While it was unable to complete a round trip to the continguous United States without aerial refueling, it posed a tremendous threat to the US Navy and to NATO assets everywhere. Backfires that were either refueled, on one-way missions, or forward based had the ability to make low-level penetrations of United States territory almost at will. NORAD relied heavily on early detection and interception of high-altitude bombers and had comparatively few surface-to-air assets to defend against such an attack.
Combat service
The Tu-22M saw its first combat use in Afghanistan from 1987 to 1989. Its usage was similar to the USAF deployment of B-52 Stratofortress bombers in Vietnam, dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance. Despite the considerable power of these attacks, their strategic usefulness was marginal. The Russian Federation used the 'Backfire' in combat against Chechen rebels.
At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union some 370 remained in CIS service. Due to their complexity and a deteriorating economy, considerable serviceability problems plagued the fleet. Production ended in 1993. Current strength is 162[1] aircraft, plus 93 in reserve.
Tu-95
Operational history
The Tu-95RT variant in particular was a veritable icon of the Cold War as it performed a vital maritime surveillance and targeting mission for other aircraft and surface ships and submarines. It was identifiable by a large bulge under the fuselage, which housed a radar antenna that was used to search for and target surface ships. The US Navy placed high priority in intercepting the Tu-95RT aircraft at least two hundred miles from the carrier with its F-14 Tomcat interceptors, which would then escort the Tu-95. On occasion, USN Tomcats demonstrated an ability to intercept Tu-95RT aircraft at ranges up to 1,000 miles from the fighters' carrier battle group.[citation needed]
During interceptions Tu-95 tail gunners typically kept their twin cannon pointed upwards as to not antagonize the intercepting fighters. Similarly, NATO rules of engagement for interceptions restricted aircrews from locking onto the Tu-95 with fire control radars lest this be misinterpreted as a hostile act.
During the height of the Cold War, the long range of the Tu-95 was demonstrated weekly as a pair of Tu-95s would fly from the Kola peninsula to Cuba along the east coast of the United States, escorted continuously along the way.
The Tu-95 dropped the Tsar Bomba in 1961.
Su-27 series
Combat service
The Su-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. Ethiopian Su-27s reportedly shot down two, three or five Eritrean MiG-29s; the first on February 25, 1999 and the second on February 26, 1999. and the third on May 16, 2000. The Su-27s were also used in CAP (Combat Air Patrol) missions, suppression of air defense, and providing escort for fighters on bombing and reconnaissance missions.
In Angolan service, one Su-27 was shot down by a SA-14 MANPADS fired by UNITA forces on November 19th, 2000. Angolan Su-27 entered service in mid 2000.
Mig-31
The Mikoyan MiG-31 (Russian: МиГ-31) (NATO reporting name "Foxhound") is a supersonic interceptor aircraft developed to replace the MiG-25 'Foxbat'. Designed by the Mikoyan design bureau, the MiG-31 was the most advanced interceptor fielded by the Soviet Union before its dissolution.
Combat record:
none
S-300@
Combat history
Although none of the S-300 versions have ever fired a missile in a real conflict, it is considered a very capable SAM system. In April 2005, NATO had a combat exercise in France and Germany called Trial Hammer 05 to practice SEAD missions.Participating countries were pleased that the Slovak Air Force brought a S-300PMU along, providing a unique opportunity for NATO to get familiar with the system.
And for the only weapon that EVER DID face western weapons except T-72 with 30 years old ammunition , I present
Mig-29
The MiGs continued their service in the subsequent FRY Air Force and finally in Serbian Air Force. During the long arms embargo placed upon the country, the condition of the MiGs worsened. When operation Allied Force started, Yugoslav MiGs were decades old and deprived of spare parts. The first two destroyed MiG-29 were No.18112 (Maj. Iljo Azrinov, downed near Priština) and No.18111 (Maj. Nebojša Nikolić, near Titel), on March 24. They flew out of Slatina Air Base. MiG-29 No.18106 flown by Maj. Predrag Milutinović was downed near Kruševac on same day. On March 26 MiGs 29 No.18114 flown by Maj. Slobodan Perić and No.18113 flown by Capt. 1st Class Zoran Radoslavljević took-off from Batajnica Air Base to intercept a high-flying NATO aircraft – two F-15C on CAP role near Bosnia . Perić was shot down near Bijeljina, and he ejected safely, but Radoslavljević, shot down near Valjevo was killed. The MiG-29 No.18109 flown by Maj. Slobodan Tešanović crashed near Užice-Ponikve Airport in a noncombat flight on May 4. Other aircraft (No.18103, 18104, 18107, 18302) were destroyed by NATO during the strikes on the ground. The MiG-29's that Serbia and Iraq operated were all degraded export versions (9.12s , 9.13s), by Western standards they would have been roughly early 70's material.
NATO also used AWACS which gave the Mig-29 pilot no chance.
This message has been edited by 5thGuards on Jun 10, 2008 11:56 AM
Former USSR always sold downgraded Military equipment,,expet to East Germany(wich recieved the advanced equipment)
And Mig 29 flied by German Luftwaffe won against US build F16,s.....in excersice Red October.
Mig 29 is a good plane ween not downgraded and flown by a good Airforce!Remeber that!
===============================================================================================
But Mig 29 is becomming fast obsolete,,,Where the West is totaly looking for unmaned Aircrafts,
Lasers,highly advanced Stuff that borders almost Scifi(Btw,it wont look so Scifi in 20 Years)!
Russia still tinkers with the Cold War equipment!Still trying to improve it somehow if they can.
And the new equipment that they build or hoppe to build...mostly commes to late or not at all.
Face it Russia will newer be able to repace its cold War arsenal.....Thats a Fact.
===============================================================================================
Think about it.......
I,m Not arguing here.....Just pointg out the facts!
As is sayd before.....I see Russia becomming a Global power but newer like USSR...and BTW,its
living standards and conditions will newer reach Eu,s...except for maybe the Moskov oblast...
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 11, 2008 4:04 AM
But Mig 29 is becomming fast obsolete,,,Where the West is totaly looking for unmaned Aircrafts,
Lasers,highly advanced Stuff that borders almost Scifi(Btw,it wont look so Scifi in 20 Years)!
Russia still tinkers with the Cold War equipment!Still trying to improve it somehow if they can.
And the new equipment that they build or hoppe to build...mostly commes to late or not at all.
Face it Russia will newer be able to repace its cold War arsenal.....Thats a Fact.
They are modernizing fast , few years ago the army was falling apart look at it now , of course the soviet army , navy and airforce is impossible but if they continue this in the future hopefully in 30 years they will have a modern force that is as capable as the soviet union once was yet not in such numbers , they have demonstrated some amazing tehnology , S-400 , Smerch , R-73 new version , Lada class submarine , Pak-Fa , Skat stealth unmanned bomber etc... Just look , if you don't count Germany into EU and compare the tehnology to Russians the Russians actually have quite more advanced improvements , germany is the pinacle of EU tehnology , anyway Russia are not building equipment as fast as they should , they are improving for example few vehicles few years ago , now already in hundrets , but they should improve it alot more in my opinion , only future will tell , but strong Russia and EU is what I wish for the future , to counter the fast growing China.
but strong Russia and EU is what I wish for the future .....
=======================================================
Good point,,thats what i wish to see too...I dont think there will be a distrust betwen those 2 as it was before ww2 and Cold war....Not nearly...I mean they coopearte good as for now.
=======================================================
few years ago the army was falling apart look at it now.....
=======================================================
Yes thats also interesting fact....But i bolive Russia in the future will be far less numerous but
more technologicaly advanced...i bolive they will repalce this frase,:Nummbers have a quality
on its own"...and build a Military comparable and modern to any Good Military force today......
Also,Russia today cant afford Nummbers,,,since ther population is 140 million compared to
USSR of 290 Milllion....thats a huge difference in laborforce,GDP,and other things.....
So its wise for them to build a much smaler but far more modern and technologicaly superior
Military than what USSR had....After all,almost all of the World economic and technological Powers
are moving into that direction...and i bolive Russia will doo so too....Thats a bether option.
This message has been edited by Veles25 on Jun 12, 2008 4:31 AM
You are not the first and wont be the last who told me this!
NO!I,m not from UK......I make alots of mistakes cus i type so darn fast and i,m
to lazy to corect it......I learned English as a educational thing!But you are probably right(and it dosent bother me)!Being Multilingual is not eazy!
