It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Ukraine arm itself with nukes?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
EX Ukraine pm the one jailed for bribes with gas deals sad she wanted to nuke the Russian population in HER COUNTRY,let alone Russia!

Think about that,she would stop shelling the cities to the east and instead nuke them,very disturbing and shows how murderous some of the far right in Ukraine are

Mr Spad,you havnt changed one bit since shock and awe days here cheering from the sidelines while others watched in disgust as war crimes were created

Russia beat the Georgian army in FIVE days,if they realy were fighting in Ukraine this civilian cleansing by the Ukraine authority would have been over as quick as Crimea voted to join Russia

Have seen you numerous times on this site mention how bad the Russian army is

That's not true,in 5 days they beat the Georgians and didn't show their full hand at their disposal to the western world

Ukraine is a trap designed to pull Russia into a long prolonged conflict as like in Afghanistan they would win the war but bleed money and lives to the resistance gone to ground and popping up when time is right to hit small isolated targets or perhaps shoot down craft with the many SAMs floating about



In five days the Russian failed to achieve air superiority because they shot down more of their own aircraft than Georgia and thus pulled back air support. Winning a war against a vastly inferior enemy means nothing if you fail at even basic things like air superiority over an much weaker enemy. Russia simply used numbers to overwhelm Georgia's forces. This is not something they can do to the much larger Ukrainian military who also has a much better air force than Georgia.

Do to lack of intelligence Russia's forces wandered into ambushes including one where the 58th Armys senior commander was hurt and had to be evacuated.

General Vladimir Boldyrev acknowledged that many of the professional soldiers did not have better training than the conscripts.

Post war the Russian saw the following problems - poor command and control, poor training, poor leadership, 60-70% of its tanks broke down, lack of night vision, lack of GPS, lack of equipment etc.

Now if the war was great success you would not have seen the Russian military so surprised by how poorly it had performed that began a huge reform.

The first problem was the Army was to large, so it lacked equipment and training. And most of it was made up of year long conscripts who would be worthless in battle. So Russia slashed the size of the Russian military to its much smaller size today. That part worked but, the part that failed was getting volunteers to sign up and be professional soldiers. So today nearly 70% of Russia's forces remain 1 year conscripts.

The second problem was poor leadership. The Russian military was heavy in Officers and lacking in experienced NCO's. The officer corps proved to be so incompetent in Georgia that they fired 200,000 officers after. They also tried to build up and NCO corps with plans to build 6 NCO schools, this however failed because of the lack of volunteers. They ended up with one school that has never been more than half full.

Third lack of or out of date equipment. Russia put some money into this but, not enough and corruption played a big role again in troops not getting what they need.

The real problem for Russia is that it is trying maintain a military only 20% smaller than the US using 1/15 of the budget.

Now you may ask then why does Russia not shrink its military to say 250,000 and make it modern well trained, well equipped professional force? The problem with that is Russia still needs large numbers for internal problems. So they are in a catch 22.

Of note the only part of its military that the Russians were not upset with performance wise was its Navy. And while it not really see any combat, it did get out of port and conduct complex maneuvers using command and control. In fact the Navy was the only part of the military that was not placed under massive reforms after. Despite the same problems as the rest of the military with old ships, shoddy equipment. poorly trained recruits the Navy seems to have a well trained officer corps that was able to work through all that.

And in Ukraine we again see many of the same problems. Lack of professional troops and units being tossed in unprepared and not even knowing they where they were going until the were on the front lines. At least that is what Russian soldiers claims when they are captured. The Russian government just says they got lost.




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
With respect Mr Spad,how many Russian soldiers are serving in Ukraine (not including Crimea for obvious reasons )

I know there are going to be the few dogs of war,or Ukrainian Russian soldiers feeling they need to take action to save their region

Russia of course suffered with the collapse of the old Soviet Union when many criminals purchased state companies and the armed forces held out begging tins and old submarines fell apart to neglect (ect,ect)

Trouble is you can not underestimate Russia as The French and Germans did in history,they have the man power

Concerning Georgia if America beat them in 5 days we wouldn't hear about a few aircraft losses and let's not forget NATO had trained them and supplied weapons seeing as Georgia was one of the few nations to put boots on the ground in our illegal war on terror

Concerning Russia against Ukraine

Ukraine army doesn't want and can't fight the rebels let alone Russia!

Look at how professional the Russian army kept the local Ukraine armed forces out of the action in Crimea to ensure a safe area for its citizens.
If the Ukraine army was as good as you say it was they would have never allowed that but the truth is you underestimate Russia and hype up Ukraine

Ukraine can't win the battles and wants other nations to fight for them, while Russia watches from it's borders knowing it's a trap to pull them in and bleed them dry of finances and serving men after they win the war but spend a decade fighting guerrilla warfare

Russia has showed great restraint on the economic sanctions placed on her, and the loss of life of its citizens in a country on its border that used to be Russian not that long ago



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Wi

Trouble is you can not underestimate Russia as The French and Germans did in history,they have the man power


No they don't any more.

Russia is not the USSR, and NATO and the USA have about 6 times the population that Russia has (905 million in NATO vs 145 million in Russia!).

Russia has a smaller economy, a smaller industrial base and a smaller population than its European foes would have this time.
edit on 10-7-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   
After 25 years, any nukes left in the Ukraine would be useless, all the electronics irradiated into one lump.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Nukes that old would too radio active by now that they would be inoperable, the trigger board chips would be fried by now.


Yep, Never mind the fact that Russian spies are all over that place like flies. One whisper of them starting a nuclear program will bring the entire Russian army pouncing on their heads in something looking just short of the U.S. biblical beating of Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 1991.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword




Concerning Georgia if America beat them in 5 days we wouldn't hear about a few aircraft losses and let's not forget NATO had trained them and supplied weapons seeing as Georgia was one of the few nations to put boots on the ground in our illegal war on terror Concerning Russia against Ukraine Ukraine army doesn't want and can't fight the rebels let alone Russia! Look at how professional the Russian army kept the local Ukraine armed forces out of the action in Crimea to ensure a safe area for its citizens.


Georgia had its best troops in Iraq at the time and the U.S. had just started to train them, small groups at a time. Russias invasion of Georgia was the most pathetic display of an army that size it was not funny. It took their airforce three days to hit one little pipeline pumping station lol. They shelled innocent apartment complexes over and over.

Georgia warned Bush and NATO that the mountain pass into Georgia from Russia was a pure traffic jam of Russian heavy armor for a week prior to Russia launching the invasion. Had Bush wanted to save Georgia he could have sent in bombers and wiped out Russia's whole invasion force in one day.

RE: Ukraine, they had no idea Russia was going to do what they did and they did not want to start a war with Russia. Why would they?? They knew they would lose quickly if they just started shooting it up. Now they have Russia in a bad state. Russia is looking very foolish and until they commit full on or pull out they are going to lose a lot of men. Putin is probably scared to move his forces into Ukraine full on cause he does not know if NATO will retaliate or not. A NATO attack, he knows will come like a lightning bolt and hit him where he least expects it. Putin is not keen on the unknown and his disappearing stunt proved it. He thought NATO was going to attack so he ran for the bunker.

Russian Generals coming out last year and warning China that they would lose any war with the U.S. in 24 hours time proves they do not underestimate our forces in the slightest. NATO as a whole doesn't underestimate Russia either. Some very foolish people in D.C. might but they are young or dumb. Russia today is not the same pathetic army it was when they invaded Georgia thanks to them watching U.S. tactics and what gear is the best on Youtube. They have had 12 years to gear up like Pros. They still lack proper training but im sure they are learning pretty quick since we broadcast everything to everyone.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Well i was reading earlier about one of our UK military leaders reckoned how modernised the Russian military had become over the past few years. New tanks, apcs, weaponry, planes, subs, body armour, nukes.......................... Certainly doesn't sound like things are as bad as you dream Mr Spad. In addition to which Russia the biggest country on Planet Earth by a mile has actually been slowly increasing the size of the nation adding bits here and bits there and filling these places with Russian troops.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: MrSpad

Well i was reading earlier about one of our UK military leaders reckoned how modernised the Russian military had become over the past few years. New tanks, apcs, weaponry, planes, subs, body armour, nukes.......................... Certainly doesn't sound like things are as bad as you dream Mr Spad. In addition to which Russia the biggest country on Planet Earth by a mile has actually been slowly increasing the size of the nation adding bits here and bits there and filling these places with Russian troops.



It is not my dream. This comes from the Russians themselves. You know who complains about crappy equipment more than anybody, the soldiers that have to use it. On the plus side a couple years ago as part of improving things all units are suppose to have working showers on base. And Russia being the biggest country is part of its strategic problem. To much land to defend with to few troops. Do you know why the Russian Army is 80% 1 year conscripts? Because nobody wants to volunteer and make it a career because conditions are so bad. They were building 6 NCO schools but went with only one because nobody can get the conscripts to stay in. If you wish to ignore the Russians that is your call.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms


Yep Putin has screwed the Russian people. Russia could have progressed and done well but Putin has ensured it will be a long long time before they are trusted and allowed to play monopoly with the big kids again.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: MrSpad
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms


Yep Putin has screwed the Russian people. Russia could have progressed and done well but Putin has ensured it will be a long long time before they are trusted and allowed to play monopoly with the big kids again.


Honestly the way he has treated the military I would not be surprised to see somebody try a coup. When your elite para troops barracks collapse and were "repaired" a couple years before that is bad. When your professional soldiers are up and leaving and trying resign you have real problem. When your soldiers know their brothers who have been sent to die in Ukraine are being treated as deserters and their family's getting nothing you have something that could lead to your downfall.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Despite all the hoopla, I'm almost 100% positive they didn't surrender all their nukes.

They would have been pretty foolish to. I'm thinking there are a lot of countries that deny or won't admit to having nukes but do.


They did the Russians had a detailed inventory of there stockpile. Russia knew what they had and in the agreement set safeguards in place to have them returned.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms


Well yes and no Ukraine had destroyed there army. But navy and airforce has seen improvements. But by no coincidence that's also where they have the most non transcripts. Russia always has a huge problem with desertion.. By some accounts as high as 50 percent counting the people that just don't show up.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
I was interested in knowing, as Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union, as to whether or not they had any nuclear weapons stationed on their soil. What I found was, up till the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had the THIRD largest arsenal in the world, over 1900 warheads, more than Britain and China combined. Ukraine gave up its weapons in 1994, after signing the Budapest memorandum on Security assurances, which is basically gave Ukraine territorial integrity. The memorandum was signed by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. That memorandum has now been trchnically broken with Russia's invasion of Ukraine territory. As they gave up their weapons at the behest of this assurance, they are now in a position where they can legally re-arm themselves.

In the past few days, there are rumblings of calls to do this.

The Ukrainian Svoboda party is one of the 5 main political parties in Ukraine. It is an ultra right wing nationalist party, and models itself somewhat after the German NAZI party. Its membership has been limited to ethnic Ukrainians. Their MPMikhail Golovko, has called to re-arm the country in light of recent events"




T. Mikhail Golovko, Svoboda MP (speaking Ukrainian): “We made a very grave mistake when we gave up [our] nuclear arsenal. And right now we need to make decisions on how we can defend our statehood and sovereignty. We need to consider a number of options. One option would be to restore [our nuclear arsenal], but it’s a very complicated issue, because we’d have to obtain assurances and agreements from those world powers that are entitled to give them. We can also consider the option of Ukraine joining NATO since this is also an alliance for collective security.”


The comment to join NATO is sure to inflame the situation even further. So now we have a situation where Ukraine may, in the next few months, attempt to make nuclear weapons, next door to a hostile Russia. It may not be easy. Ukraine does get about half its energy from atomic power, and has the largest nuclear power facility in Europe. The uranium they received up tp now from Russia to power the plants is low grade. Ukraine has now nuclear enrichment facilities, but its possible they could construct "dirty bombs". Ukraine DOES have biological weapons facilities that handled weaponized pathogens used by the Russians. Its possible they may still have some of these pathogens at the facilites.

Also there is the question as to whether or not Ukraine actually did surrender every nuclear weapon it had, I.E. the possibility that there may still be some "loose nukes" somewhere in Ukraine. During the breakup of the Soviet union, there were some sales of nuclear materials on the black market, this is documented. So even if Ukriane does not posses actual weapons, they may have weapons grade materials.

As a result, we may be moving into a very dangerous period in world history.


Fascists with nukes. What could go wrong?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul




Fascists with nukes. What could go wrong?


I guess we will have to wait and see what Putin does.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: JeanPaul




Fascists with nukes. What could go wrong?


I guess we will have to wait and see what Putin does.


People joke but at least with the Soviets there were restrictions in place. Checks and balances if you will. Putin has done away with all that he is the only one making decisions. Having seen what other dictators are capable of in the past we may need to worry. He's been showing signs of being increasingly unstable and the stuff coming out the kremlin is insane. Like limited nuclear strike very dangerous Putin thinking such a thing exists.

Even worse his take over is absolute he's got Russians to believe the west is trying to remove their freesoms. Well he has taken over their freedoms without even a shot being fired all in the name of nationalism. Funny it's exactly what Hitler did to the Germans and history repeats itself once again.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Yes there's a totally different story happening inside Russia - nationalist paranoia is the order of the day.

Needless to say this is being reported in het anti-Russia western press such as the WSJ - MH17 highlights different realities in Russia and the West - unfortunately this is behind a paywall and I can read it through a 3rd party....so let's see if it will copy:


MOSCOW-For the West, the downing one year ago of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 underlined the brutality of Moscow's hybrid intervention in eastern Ukraine. In Russia, the downing is still living large on television screens, blamed squarely on the Ukrainians-with the possible connivance of Western secret services.

Within hours of the crash on July 17, 2014, Russian state television began to spew a jumble of explanations for the tragedy, all of which fingered Kiev and absolved Russia and pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine of guilt.

Theories included an attack from a Ukrainian fighter jet, a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile, or a botched attempt to kill President Vladimir Putin, whose presidential plane had passed near Ukraine hours earlier. Such stories still abound, with some embellishments.

"Everyone believes that Ukraine is responsible, and that has not changed," said Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political commentator based in Moscow who has lately proposed that the U.S. helped plan the shoot down. That is why, he says, no U.S. citizens were on board. "In the U.S. they know the truth, but they will never tell it."

In fact, there was one American among the 298 crash victims.

The ability of Russians and Westerners to see such different realities over the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe exposes a fallacy of U.S. policy toward Russia since the end of the Cold War.

After the rise of the Internet and the fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years ago, the West assumed that Russians and Westerners would naturally come to believe the same things. Free access to information would, like the free hand of capitalism, "propel the world toward common beliefs and ways of life," said Sam Greene, director of the Russian Institute at King's College London.

"Now we're finding out that's not quite true," Mr. Greene said. "There's a whole reassessment going on now about what to do about it."

Russia hasn't censored its Internet nearly as much as China, so Russians still enjoy mostly unfettered access to information from outside the country, albeit often not in their native language.

How Mr. Putin got Russians to ignore those sources and believe a state-run media that has a tradition of mendacity says a lot about how little Russia has changed since the end of the Cold War-and how some primitive Soviet-era propaganda strategies remain effective.

It also serves as a warning to the West that relations with Russia, now at a post-Cold-War nadir, could stay that way for some time. Boris Nemtsov, a Putin critic and former deputy prime minister who was gunned down outside the Kremlin early this year, said in an interview before his death that anti-American myths and resentment are widespread and would likely linger even if Mr. Putin steps down after his current term expires in 2018, or the term after that, in 2024.

"Putin has eaten the brains of a whole generation of Russians," he said. "I think it will remain this way at least until he leaves."

After the CEO of France's Total oil company-a rare ally of Russia in a time of multiplying economic sanctions and international isolation-was killed when his plane slammed into a snowplow operated by a drunken driver at a Moscow airport, Kremlin commentators suggested the CIA had assassinated him.

In the U.S. and Europe, officials are discussing possible counter-propaganda strategies, but none look easy as Mr. Putin has taken control of all major television and newspapers since his rise to power.

The Kremlin has meanwhile selectively blocked some websites and funds a host of others, making the search for objective Russian news confusing. In the past year Moscow opposition news services have revealed how the government pays beehives of bloggers-so-called trolls-who write under numerous Facebook accounts and identities on newspaper message boards.

Their comments don't support the Kremlin line as much as attack Western news reporting as biased, suggesting that the truth is unknowable. The mélange of misinformation and conspiracy theory makes any conclusion about world events seem questionable or a matter of opinion.

Television, meanwhile, is a more-focused instrument for persuasion, said Mr. Greene at King's College. Last year public opinion polls showed that fewer than 5% of Russians thought that Russia or Russian-backed rebels had shot down the Malaysia Airlines flight. The vast majority blamed the Ukraine military.

The rest of the world has largely assigned blame to Russia or Russia-backed rebels.

The putative assassination of Mr. Putin was one of the first theories circulated over Russia's main state-controlled television station, the First Channel. A commentator explained that Mr. Putin, who was flying home that day from a summit in South America, had flown near the Polish capital of Warsaw about 45 minutes before the doomed Malaysian flight.

The Ukraine military appeared to mix the planes up, shooting down the Malaysia flight by accident, said the commentator, citing a confidential source in Russia's Federal Transport Agency. Mr. Putin landed safely.

Simultaneously, the same channel put forward another theory, suggesting a poorly trained Ukrainian missile crew shot down the airliner by mistake-as had happened in 2001, when a Russian passenger plane exploded over the Black Sea, killing all 78 on board.

First Channel ran old footage from that catastrophe, showing a Ukrainian leader at the time falsely denying responsibility. [Kiev admitted days later that one of its errant missiles was probably to blame.]

The network also interviewed a supposed military expert as saying pro-Russian rebels today didn't have a missile that could reach a passenger airliner at cruising altitude.

"Only Ukrainian troops could have destroyed the civilian airliner," Igor Korotchenko, a Russian defense commentator, pronounced the day of the crash on First Channel.

Today the main debate in Russia is whether a Ukrainian missile shot down the airliner or a Ukrainian fighter jet. The day after the downing, state television aired a Russia Defense Department briefing in which a senior officer suggested that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot down the flight. Ukraine denied it, and pointed out that the Su-25, which was designed to destroy tanks, was built with an unpressurized cockpit and cannot fly high enough to have reached the airliner.

The next day, the managers of Russia's Wikipedia said there was a flurry of attempts to edit its article about the Su-25, trying to change it to say that the plane could fly at higher altitudes.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: JeanPaul




Fascists with nukes. What could go wrong?


I guess we will have to wait and see what Putin does.


Only a total idiot would want the Svoboda and Right Sector to have nukes.

Putin heads a crony capitalist system in Russia. They weren't going to use nukes when Leninists ran the country and they aren't going to use them now. If Russia nuked some nation I'd be the first to join the "destroy the Russian gov" brigade. As it is now I could care less if their gov was overthrown in favor of a new regime.

The threat of actual card carrying fascists with acsess to nukes is beyond the threat Russia poses.

Antisemetic/racist fascist ideology is fanatical. I'm sure Isreal would send the Mossad to deal with the Svoboda and Right Sector parties if they were close to getting nukes. Heck, the USG would attempt to stop it as well.

We can hate Putin all day but the comparisons to Hitler are absurd. It's totally absurd. Russia isn't a suicidal fascist death cult. They've had nukes for about 75 years and have never used them, in fact, what nation actually nuked civilian populations, twice?

And since we're on the hate Putin and ignore the USG's injustices trip why don't we ask Iraq how justified the US was in killing a million plus Iraqi's since the 1990's? Is the post USSR Russian body count anywhere close to the USA's? Which nation has been waging perpetual war? How many ethnic Russians are in Ukraine? How many Americans lived in Iraq? How many nations has the USA bombed since the 1990's alone? Ah, that's right, we're spreading freedom and democracy!

Most of our governments are crazy. The Russians, Americans, British, French, Chinese, German you name it. None of them actually represent the best interests of the people. Picking sides is silly. Nationalism is silly. It's dangerous. It's used to wage war. To profit a small percentage of the population. Our respective flags are corporate logos. Russia and the west are competing businesses. Nuclear war would be very very bad for business.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: MrSpad
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms


Yep Putin has screwed the Russian people. Russia could have progressed and done well but Putin has ensured it will be a long long time before they are trusted and allowed to play monopoly with the big kids again.


Lol, there I was thinking it was the post Soviet pillage of Russia's public assets that sent them back 50 years.

The transition was rushed. It was done wrong, probably on purpose with western influence.

Russia should have slowly introduced market reforms. Much like Deng in China. Hell, if they weren't such paranoid authoritarian Leninists the USSR would probably still be around. Much like China's communist party.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: MrSpad
Russian forces have 3 huge problems First 75% of them are one year conscripts which means most of Russia reserve are former 1 year conscripts. Completely worthless until they have has some real training. Second low morale Russian Troops leave Unit to avoid Ukraine And third corruption at every level leading to terrible things like this 23 Soldiers die in barracks collapse Honestly by the time this is over nobody is going to volunteer to be in Russia's Army War in Ukraine ruined reforms


Yep Putin has screwed the Russian people. Russia could have progressed and done well but Putin has ensured it will be a long long time before they are trusted and allowed to play monopoly with the big kids again.


Lol, there I was thinking it was the post Soviet pillage of Russia's public assets that sent them back 50 years.

The transition was rushed. It was done wrong, probably on purpose with western influence.

Russia should have slowly introduced market reforms. Much like Deng in China. Hell, if they weren't such paranoid authoritarian Leninists the USSR would probably still be around. Much like China's communist party.


You do realize there was a lot going on behind the scenes you have the failed takeover of the KGB. Then when there attempts failed they started shipping every bit of money they could get there hands on. Don't think everything going up for sale wasnt planned. That was so Put in and his associates could get ahold of it. They owned half the country before anyone knew what happened.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join