Russian Defense Minister Purges Baltic Fleet Command

a reply to: intrptr

It's called classical architecture, or rather neoclassical. Most morn countries have sought this style as an expression in some way, or another. There's even influences in Russia, if you looked. Move on from the modern monuments, most civic buildings in there States are more in keeping with the American style.

I am not defending the US, but merely pointing out that you know nothing about architecture.

a reply to: paraphi

It's called classical architecture, or rather neoclassical.

You down play that all you like. I see the correlation. We carry it further than just 'classical architecture'. Our gladiator games in football stadiums are far less brutal, but symbolize the same cultural and political system. For instance. I hardly call the Roman and our senate "classical architecture" either. There a reason we pattern our system after theirs, because they are the same.

There are plenty of cultural icons that could have been chosen over the worlds worst Empire's 'classics'. The themes run all through western culture continuing from then till today.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Considering Greece is the birthplace of Democracy it only makes sense.

That word is misused. We're supposed to be a Republic anyway, voting for representatives of, by and for the people by "democratic" means.

Greece became an empire with world dominating aspirations, too.

And I'll just bet people like you that lived then still called that brutality "Democracy" too.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

Considering Greece is the birthplace of Democracy it only makes sense.

That word is misused. We're supposed to be a Republic anyway, voting for representatives of, by and for the people by "democratic" means.

Greece became an empire with world dominating aspirations, too.

And I'll just bet people like you that lived then still called that brutality "Democracy" too.

Actually Alexander's rule was probably better for the average person than nearly all of the other empires he conquered.

originally posted by: intrptr

And I'll just bet people like you that lived then still called that brutality "Democracy" too.

That would be Putin, not me.

a reply to: intrptr

To be honest, I am lost in trying to understand what you are talking about.

Anyway, back to topic.

The Russian Baltic Fleet is quite small and comprises two destroyers, two frigates and two kilo boats. Granted there are a large number of auxiliary vessels, but major warships are few. The Russian Baltic navy is totally outmatched by all the other Baltic countries.

Similarly, the Black Sea fleet (not part of the OP, but mentioned in this thread) is small and again, totally outmatched by other nations on the Black Sea, notably Turkey.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: intrptr

To be honest, I am lost in trying to understand what you are talking about.

Anyway, back to topic.

The Russian Baltic Fleet is quite small and comprises two destroyers, two frigates and two kilo boats. Granted there are a large number of auxiliary vessels, but major warships are few. The Russian Baltic navy is totally outmatched by all the other Baltic countries.

Similarly, the Black Sea fleet (not part of the OP, but mentioned in this thread) is small and again, totally outmatched by other nations on the Black Sea, notably Turkey.

Wait don't tell them the Turks have more ships on thr area that totally shatters there reality. How dare you.

a reply to: paraphi

That is changing, thanks to NATO. Read the thread title.

originally posted by: intrptr

That is changing, thanks to NATO. Read the thread title.

What's changing? The Baltic fleet is small, Denmark has a much bigger navy then everything the Russians could put to sea in the Baltic. Russia has a small comparison compared to the other Baltic states - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the three Baltic nations and Germany. The Russians can purge all they like, but it does not change reality.

Prove me I am wrong.

a reply to: paraphi

What are you implying, its okay to take over some other place because resistance is light?

Are you justifying it to yourself by downplaying other nations defenses?

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, I totally agree with you that it is wrong for Russia to annex other people's territory because resistance is light. It is rare that we agree.

a reply to: paraphi

We don't agree at all.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: paraphi

We don't agree at all.

So you think it is ok for Russia to annex their neighbors land because resistance was light?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: paraphi

We don't agree at all.

So you think it is ok for Russia to annex their neighbors land because resistance was light?

Russia's moves were a response to EU US (NATO) meddling on their doorstep,

"Russia" left the "EU", disbanded the Warsaw pact and went home, not that you'll admit it, it doesn't fit your agenda.

EU only formed afterwards, encroaching ever since the Soviets abdicated.

a reply to: intrptr

Nope it wasn't. Thats an excuse to justify their invasion (among the many other excuses they gave that kept changing).

As for the remainder after Russia left the warsaw pact and EU then turned around and joined NATO's PFP program, not that you would ever acknowledge that fact or the fact Russia was just fine with what NATO was doing until it turned politically convenient for putin to create a false outside threat after he was caught rigging the Russian elections when he was elected President the last go around. Not that you would ever acknowledge it.

a reply to: intrptr

You like to rewrite history don't you?? First you want to know why the EU was crated?? It was to battle the US economy and it's stranglehold on the world economy. And why would the EU care about the warsaw pact the EU is blocks of countries who establish preferential trade agreements. They in no way threaten or could they but as we know when dictators take power they need an enemy.

And what happened in Russia is thr constitution they created has already been destoyed. Russia had a true chance at gain liberty. Problem was just like a dog that has been beaten it's whole life will always return to its master. Russians couldn't handle not having someone to tell them what to do an think they were not ready yet.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

Nope it wasn't. Thats an excuse to justify their invasion (among the many other excuses they gave that kept changing).

As for the remainder after Russia left the warsaw pact and EU then turned around and joined NATO's PFP program, not that you would ever acknowledge that fact or the fact Russia was just fine with what NATO was doing until it turned politically convenient for putin to create a false outside threat after he was caught rigging the Russian elections when he was elected President the last go around. Not that you would ever acknowledge it.

You just repeated what I said back to me. Polly want a cracker?

a reply to: dragonridr

Bulgaria is having second thoughts about joint NATO operations in the Black Sea. Theres a thread about that and another about Europe getting fidgety about US military presence in Eastern EU. They want a peace agreement with Russia, not be under occupation by the US.

After all warmongers, its Europe, not the United States of America.

You guys never learn.

a reply to: MrSpad
Some people in power may think this is the perfect time to strike.

It would be interesting to find out how much corruption russia has within its nuclear forces.

By that i mean could the corruption be so bad that it could reduce the amount of nukes they could launch but the top people think everything is ok.