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.

 

Russia's Long-Range Bomber Force Ready For Pre-Emptive Strikes

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
1. I say it again Taleban is not Mujahedeen. Northern Aliance was the remains of Mujahedeens. US didn't arm, nor finance Taleban, because Taleban was created AFTER Afghan war, and it consisted mostly of students of Pakistan madrassas not anti russian afghan guerillas (with som exceptions like bin Laden). I know it is very nice idea that US created Taleban, but it's simply not true.

2. Tu-160 is superior to B1B in payload and speed, but not in electornics and stealth (although the new "stealth" version has RCS similar to B1B). It is also maintance intensive plane, russians have a lot of problem with keeping it mission ready and also with production - they have app. 20 of them compare this to 67 B1B bombers and 21 B2 and you'll see that in this aspects the russians are inferior, no matter what you said.

3. I don't know why are you saying Georgia is unstable it is at least so stable as Russia. And concernig Russia-Georgia relationship, while there were some allegations about Georgian support of chechen guerillas perhaps you don't know that russian forces still regulary occupy some parts of Georgia.




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Russian forces do not occupy Georgia- They are peacekeepers, and have successfully kept the region stable after a long and very bloody war in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. You can compare the Georgian assault on the separatists in the two republics, to the Russian assault on Chechnya. Russia is not much interested in those separatist republics, however they feel obliged to protect the pro Russian population there. Notice I say protect- that is all the Russians are doing there- they are not interested in fighting with Georgia

Most of the people in both of those republics, want independence. South Ossetia is repeatedly asking Russia for help, but Russia refuses to do anything beyond patroling the area. And now South Ossetians are up in arms again, ready for whatever is about to start there.


And Georgia is acting aggressively, and is unstable. Without American support a small mut like Georgia would never dare bark out againt Russia. However with Americans by his side, Saakashvilli is doing everything in his power to push towards war. It is no secret that he wants war. He fired most of his cabinet members who were anti-war. The recent arrest of Russian delegates in Georgia is an act of provocation. Right now Russia is evacuating most of its diplomats from Georgia. Talk in Russia is that the situation is quickly heating up now, and I am more than sure that if there will be a military strike, it will come from Georgia. If Russian peace keepers are attacked, Russia will be forced to retaliate- and you got yourself a new WAR.

And all this because Saakashvilli is acting rash and irresponsible. He should know his place in the foodchain.


And what most people don't realise, is that this War would be beneficial to the US. US is very much interested in an unstable Caucasus, and it has been rapidly arming Georgia in the last few years. US should seriously stop interfering with Russian affairs and stumping near their turf- this could all end very badly.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   

1. I say it again Taleban is not Mujahedeen. Northern Aliance was the remains of Mujahedeens. US didn't arm, nor finance Taleban, because Taleban was created AFTER Afghan war, and it consisted mostly of students of Pakistan madrassas not anti russian afghan guerillas (with som exceptions like bin Laden). I know it is very nice idea that US created Taleban, but it's simply not true.


Here's a question longbow, who is Osama Bin Laden, what was his rank in Soviet/Afghan war, what was his involvement in financing and how did he manage the accounts?

Why were Taliban officials were greeted with open arms by US administration prior to 9/11? Why is Afghanistan is a strategically vital are in the region, and what does it have to do with oil pipelines?

You see, it is an old virtue, one can try to tell others the truth, but until they find things out for them selves, they will not believe it.


2. Tu-160 is superior to B1B in payload and speed, but not in electornics and stealth (although the new "stealth" version has RCS similar to B1B). It is also maintance intensive plane, russians have a lot of problem with keeping it mission ready and also with production - they have app.


Please provide data on B1B/Tu-160 electronics package, and then we all can make up our own minds. Please provide maintenance requirements for Tu-160, and then we all can decide exactly what the maintenance expenses are.

When you do that, I'll do my part and introduce everybody to the well know term "hangar queen", and list all US aircraft which are classified so by their own maintenance crews.


20 of them compare this to 67 B1B bombers and 21 B2 and you'll see that in this aspects the russians are inferior, no matter what you said.


Please outline the current geo-political realities, the foundations of asymmetrical warfare and its various political ramifications. Then we can figure out if its cold war era deployment strategies that shape the policies of the modern world and if sheer numerical superiority is an advantage or a financial drain.


3. I don't know why are you saying Georgia is unstable it is at least so stable as Russia. And concerning Russia-Georgia relationship, while there were some allegations about Georgian support of Chechen guerillas perhaps you don't know that russian forces still regulary occupy some parts of Georgia.


maloy covered that pretty well, but I will add a few things.

What you call "some allegations about Georgian support of Chechen guerillas" has been a fact for over a decade, and the focus point there is Pankisi Gorge. Chechen separatists are and always have been financed by foreign powers, and used Pankisi Gorge as a safe haven, base of operations and rehabilitation center for the wounded. Crimea and other locations were also openly used for taking care of wounded Chechen's under identical circumstances.

Officially, Georgian pro-western policy began immediately after the string of called "color revolutions", all of which are carbon copies of all other ex-Soviet block cou de tats'. Bay of Pigs is a good place to start in order to understand what it all means and how it works.

In this particular development the list is long, Yugoslavia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tatarstan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belorussian, Georgia, Armenia, Chechnya etc. Iraq and Afghanistan are only what the media shows us.

It gets really ugly though so be ready for it, you just might have to question the very foundation of what America is supposed to stand for, you know, things like democracy, freedom, justice and liberty for all.

Just a word of caution, because after you educate your self on what's really going on and what is done to other people in our name, feelings of pride and national patriotism tend to just wither away. The most important thing to remember here, is that the true duty of a citizen in a free democratic society is not to wave flags and drum up wars, but to simply ask WHY? That is the very foundation and the basic right of freedom and democracy.

Saakashvilli was PLACED as an acting president after repeated assassination attempts on Shevornadze, which literally forced him to seek refuge in Moscow. The last assassination he survived was actually video taped, and analysis of the act clearly shows that it was a fine tuned professional military operation, and not some rebel uprising.

Georgia is only the tip of the iceberg here, I recommend looking into what a special interest group in US called it "Eurasia" and The project for the 21ct century, Eurasian Strategic Energy Arrangements, and so forth.

As soon as you start looking you will very quickly establish that all such conflicts share identical statistical trend - OIL. The same energy companies, the ones that also provide all kinds of PMC "mercenary" services, are driving enormous lobby campaigns to drum up all kinds of conflicts, and when you get there it will quickly become very clear what is the exact source of all such instability.

Then look up geographical locations of the oil pipelines those companies are laying down, follow them right through the map, and not surprisingly, every country those pipelines cross is torn by war and conflict.

Armenians for example can't stand Georgians for selling out to Bush for example, and that's they have been actively rearming. As it stands, the puppet governments of Ukraine and Georgia are purposefully destabilizing the region with a goal to instigate armed conflict, which will lead to permanent NATO presence in the region. Just as it happened in Yugoslavia.

This is where Tu-160s come in, and their tactical and strategic deployment. Bombing Chechnya and Georgia will only create more problems for Russia, and they will end up picking up all the bill as they always do. The only reason for such deployment is reestablishment of deterrent forces, which in it self is clearly a political move, and not military.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I wonder what would happen if Georgia too decided to officialy "send peacekeepers" to pro Georgian population of Chechenya. Would it be OK too? It doesn't matter what russians say they do, the fact is - their army is on Georgian territory without Georgian approval - that's occupation, it doesn't matter if they want to fight or not. No wonder Georgians are not satisfied with this situation, no country - just look at Russia - would be happy with it.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by longbow]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
I wonder what would happen if Georgia too decided to officialy "send peacekeepers" to pro Georgian population of Chechenya. Would it be OK too?
[edit on 1-10-2006 by longbow]


There is no pro-Georgian population in Chechnya. Chechnya has nothing to do with Georgia beyond the fact that Georgia was overtly helping the separatists receive help from abroad as was pointed out by another member.

However Russian population is widely dispersed in most regions of the ex-USSR, including Georgia and Chechnya. Both Chechens and Georgians started attacking Russian civilians in the separatist republic soon after USSR broke up. Many of these Russian civilians lived there for generations, and consider that land theirs as well. They had nothing against living together with Georgians or Chechens. It was Chechens who started kicking the Russians out of their homes, and even killing those who refused to leave even before the war started. Similar events happened in Georgia leading to war. You should realise that in both republics Russians are a minority, and in many cases they are repressed. I must admit however, that certain factions in Russia are also acting aggressively towards minorities (neo-Nazis and nationalists)- and that needs to be dealt with- but the Russian government is not the one responsible for the aggresiveness, unlike in Georgia and Chechnya.

How would you feel if suddenly the Native Americans in Oklahoma started killing off whites and blacks, and chasing them away from their homes? Sure it was once their land, but now the circumstances are new, and everybody considers the land their home. Russia only felt obliged to insure the safety of Russian population in the break away rebublics.


It is more complex than just saying its Russia's imperialistic ambitions. These conflicts are a result of disintegration of an empire (USSR), where everybody shared the land and everybody was equal. Now that everybody is independent, they begin fighting over this once common land. Similar events happened in Yugoslavia and post-colonial Africa.



Originally posted by longbow
It doesn't matter what russians say they do, the fact is - their army is on Georgian territory without Georgian approval - that's occupation, it doesn't matter if they want to fight or not. No wonder Georgians are not satisfied with this situation, no country - just look at Russia - would be happy with it.
[edit on 1-10-2006 by longbow]


Ok lets look at some other examples around the world:

NATO is illegally occupying Yugoslavia, after an illegal invasion of the Greater Serbia. They are in Kosovo and Bosnia, which are both Serbian historical terriritory, and they do not have Serbia's approval.

US has illegally occupying/occupied the following countries among many others: Lebanon, Somalia, North Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, Mexico, Cuba, Germany, Phillipines, and many more.

Nearly every peace keeping force in the world is also illegal according to you, if they do not have the express approval of the host government. But then if they did have the approval of the government, why and from whom would they then need to keep peace to begin with?


There are some consequences, when a peaceful occupation (peace keeping forces) is necessary despite protests from local governments- in most cases because these local governments are the aggressors. Georgia was an aggressor. Russia is keeping it from attacking civilians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In my opion, Russia was wrong in launching a mass air attack on Chechnya as well, and perhaps Chechnya does need international peacekeepers.

And Russia is not automatically attaching Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Russian Federation. If they wanted to do this, they would have done it a long time ago. Russia wouldn't mind if the two republics join with Georgia offcially, as long as they can be guaranteed that Russian civilians there will get equal rights, and will be allowed some degree autonomy. Russia allowed this for Chechnya, Tartarstan, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Buryatia, and many other autonomous republics.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
What you call "some allegations about Georgian support of Chechen guerillas" has been a fact for over a decade, and the focus point there is Pankisi Gorge. Chechen separatists are and always have been financed by foreign powers, and used Pankisi Gorge as a safe haven, base of operations and rehabilitation center for the wounded. Crimea and other locations were also openly used for taking care of wounded Chechen's under identical circumstances.


I never heard about Crimea involved with Chechnya. Crimea is composed of mostly Russian population, and I doubt Chechnyan rebels would see it as a safeheaven. The only way I can think of is the Tatar minority in Crimea, who might have sympathized with the separatists. But even then Crimea is inconveniently located. I would suspect Azerbaijan's involvement on the other hand, since it is mostly Muslim.

And to expand on the reason why Georgia was helping Chechens:

Prior to Chechen wars, Chechens (and Ingush, and Dagestanis) actually helped repel Georgian attacks in South Ossetia and Abhazia, and helped the separatists there against Georgia. After that conflict ended, and Chechen conflict began, Georgia had its revenge in a way, by helping Chechens this time. There is concrete evidence of direct Georgia help to Chechens. Trucks, medical equipment, and other desperately needed supplies were received by Chechens in the Pankisi Gorge. Many of these supplies came directly from Georgian government.

Under Shevardnadze, Georgia at least could negotiate with Russia. There were tensions, but they were both open to dialog. Russia had sort of forgiven Shevardnadze for helping Chechens. Saakashvili however severed all ties with Russia. He increased aid to the Chechen rebels, and started acting aggressively towards Ossetia and Abkhazia.



Originally posted by iskander
Officially, Georgian pro-western policy began immediately after the string of called "color revolutions", all of which are carbon copies of all other ex-Soviet block cou de tats'. Bay of Pigs is a good place to start in order to understand what it all means and how it works.

In this particular development the list is long, Yugoslavia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tatarstan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belorussian, Georgia, Armenia, Chechnya etc. Iraq and Afghanistan are only what the media shows us.


I completely agree with you regarding this farce of colored revolutions. It was nothing short of overthrowing of current governments (democratic governments I might add), and replacing them with American puppets. It is a good thing Belarus did not succumb to Western pressure. You can be sure however that it is next in the cross hairs. It doesn't matter what the people want. It doesn't matter that Lukashenka is immensely popular, and life is better than in most CIS countries. What matters is what US wants. US wants a new leader there, and that is what US will get, under any false pretenses of revolutions, and using any means necessary.

With the way US has been aggressively acting towards Russia, stumping on what has always been Russia's turf, I am surprise Russia didn't spit in America's face yet. I say stop supplying oil and gas to the West, where American puppets accuse Russia of whatever it does. Stop bidding on WTO. Russia should look to the East. China and India could be immense partners for Russia. They have the money, and Russia has the resources. The ILLEGAL coup in Ukraine alone, could warrant a new Cold War. Ukraine is Russia, and Russia is Ukraine. No two countries have ever been closer in language, tradition, culture, and history. What US did there can be seen as aggression- but then US has been doing it for 60 years now.

But soon the people in these "new democracies" will see that they were cheated. They were promised a better life, more freedom and independence. But all they are gonna get is a few US military bases installed on their turf. US couldn't care less about Ukanians' or Georgians' ambitions and way of life. US and NATO will just use them like they used so many other countries. And when these people wake up to the truth, they will overthrow the new corrupt American puppets, and return power back into their own hands (like recently Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia). They don't need Western imperialists to tell them what to do, and to exploit them to their utmost potential.



Originally posted by iskander
Armenians for example can't stand Georgians for selling out to Bush for example, and that's they have been actively rearming. As it stands, the puppet governments of Ukraine and Georgia are purposefully destabilizing the region with a goal to instigate armed conflict, which will lead to permanent NATO presence in the region. Just as it happened in Yugoslavia.


This is also true for Transdniester in Moldova. Recent events there have been signaling a new possible conflict with both EU and NATO at their doorstep. US is currently surrounding Russia from all sides, while at the same time insuring energy reserves for the future. Armania is practically the only country left in the region that is still friendly to Russia. And even Armania is surrounded by enemies- Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armanie is practically forced to arm itself now that it is isolated from Russia. Russia is the only partner it can count on, unless they sell themselves out to the US, in which case they will be open to exploitation, and no doubt used by US in the future invasions in Middle East (they broder Iran).

Now the fight between US and Russia is on for Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which can still swing both ways. If US gets a footing there however, Russia will be practically surrounded, except for Mongolia (also sure to be on America's "to do" list in the future). Such will be very grim consequences for Russia, and will no doubt lead to a new Cold War, and possibly a formation of alliance with China or India. Even if US elects a democract in the next presidential elections, you can bet that more than likely this expansion will continue. What US does not realize is that it is only digging itself in a hole, because a Russia-China alliance would some day surpass the power of the US, and the tables will be turned. However most of the American public seems very ignorant of this fact.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by ARNOMANNN
Anybody ever bothered to think that maybe Russia is prepping their airforce for the upcoming War with Iran??? Russia has invested alot of time,money and personnel into the Iranian nuclear program and is also a major buyer of iranian oil.Maybe the terrorist's they speak about is the U.S.A. itself???


No, and no offense, but that is ridiculous.

I don't it's that ridiculous,in fact follow the money trail of the terrorist's and some of it leads back to the sviet union



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ARNOMANNN
I don't it's that ridiculous,in fact follow the money trail of the terrorist's and some of it leads back to the sviet union


And even more of it leads right to the USA.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
maloy, that did not deserve your response.

First the Russians are so poor that they cant buy boots for their soldiers, then they apparently have the money to sponsor world wideterrorism, and God knows what else.

Make up your mind people.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
maloy, that did not deserve your response.

First the Russians are so poor that they cant buy boots for their soldier, then they apparently have the money to sponsor world terrorism, and God knows what else.

Make up your mind people.

P.S. Here's a clue;


leads back to the sviet union


All those money trails must be traveling back in time right to the Soviet Union, kind of like "Back to the Future" style.

I wonder who their banker is, cause I sure would like to find out if I can make some investments back in late 80s early 90s....



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Russia is not poor today (not the government at least). However they have never helped any organization recognized as being remotely terrorist. It is true they are selling wepons to Middle East GOVERNMENTS, but these are not terrorists. Nor is Russia giving them anything for free. Its all paid for, and its all business- US wanted Russia to be capitalist and now it is.

In the 90's most certainly Russia was not able, to help any "terrorists", nor did it have any remote reason to do so. In the Soviet times, they had even less reasons to support any Jihadis or Mujahedeens. Soviet Union was at war with these radicalists, while US was feeding future Al-Quida, Saddam, and even Iran (Reagan - Contra affair).

Furthermore US is feeding nearly all of the terrorist organizations with what else- oil money. Where do you think this money is going? To feed and help the homeless in Saudi Arabia? Al-Quida is an American creation. Hamas and Hezbolah are an Israeli creation to some extent (with American help). Pakistan is armed with a nuclear arsenal thanks to the great old USA.



Just face it- US is at war with the demon of your its creation. And what better way to justify your side, than blame others for creating this demon? And just imagine what demons US is creating today, through its arrogant War On Terrorism - new enemies whom your children will have to fight generations upon generations.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Does anybody recall a story on how Al-Qaeda's no. 2 man al zwhari?? was detained by the kgb in chechnya in the mid 90's for about 90 days and then released?? Shortly after that,Osama declares jihad against America.Co-incidence?? I think so!!



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ARNOMANNN
Does anybody recall a story on how Al-Qaeda's no. 2 man al zwhari?? was detained by the kgb in chechnya in the mid 90's for about 90 days and then released?? Shortly after that,Osama declares jihad against America.Co-incidence?? I think so!!


First- Bin Laden waged war on the US long before 1996 (when Zawahri reportedly got detained). Do you remember the WTC bombing in 1993? Russia detained alot of people in Chechnya to sort all of them out. Besides Chechens many were Azerbaijanis, many were Ingush/Dagestani, and a large contingent from all over Middle East. During the first war, many were realeased due to lack of evidence to jail them.

Bin Laden was always anti-Russian (he fought the Russians in the 80's in Afganistan). He remains anti-Russian to this day. Why would Russia be interested back then, in supporting him? There is absolutely no evience for this, beyond some very wild speculation. If you are unaware Russia is still fighting militant Islam and jihadists in the Caucasus. Russia stood nothing to gain from terrorist attacks on America. And it most certainly would have never supported Bin Laden.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
No. What was the story? I do know that there was not KGB in the mid 90s, not in Chechnya or anywhere else.

I do recall that Osama Bin Laden was guarded by US troops while he was getting med treatment, and that's after he "declares jihad against America".



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
No. What was the story? I do know that there was not KGB in the mid 90s, not in Chechnya or anywhere else.

I do recall that Osama Bin Laden was guarded by US troops while he was getting med treatment, and that's after he "declares jihad against America".


By the time he WAS already working with Bin Laden, he was sent on many "assignments" spreading the Jihad rhetoric. One of these assignments, in 1996, was Chechnya.

The main point is- by that time he already knew Bin Laden. They were already well involved with anti-American/Western and militant Islamic agendas.

Who is Ayman al-Zawahri?


Six months later, Zawahri was expelled from Sudan and with bin Laden and 400 others went to Afghanistan. Over the next few years, Zawahri's role included traveling to raise money and to cement ties with other militant groups. In December 1996, he went to Chechnya to see about setting up a base but was arrested in Dagestan and sentenced in April 1997 to six months for illegal entry, after which he was released. Bin Laden paid to bail him out.


Back then Russia had little reason to incriminate him, beyond arrest for illegal entry. He did not achieve much progress in Chechnya at that time, and was virtually unknown as a terrorist in Russia. I don't think even US knew much about him back then.

Actually he also visited the US in the 90's. So maybe he met there with the CIA, who talked him into planning the 9/11 attacks, so that the US could start a global terror campaign to increase its influence around the world. There's a theory for you.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I did not know that al-Zawahri was in Chechnya. For a decade our media called Chechen's "freedom fighters" and separatists, and only after 9/11 they were relabeled as terrorists. Never have I heard from US media that Arabs were active in Chechnya, and that there are in fact connections to Al Qaeda, Taliban and so forth. That was always the angle of the Russian media.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
I did not know that al-Zawahri was in Chechnya. For a decade our media called Chechen's "freedom fighters" and separatists, and only after 9/11 they were relabeled as terrorists. Never have I heard from US media that Arabs were active in Chechnya, and that there are in fact connections to Al Qaeda, Taliban and so forth. That was always the angle of the Russian media.


The Chechens would have never held out against Russia as long as they did, by themselves. Both of Chechen wars were indeed proxy wars more than anything- Chechnya was a front for Muslim extremists. The original Chechen rebel leader Dudayev, was initially against turning the civil war there into religious-based struggle. However by the 1994 (2 years into the war), he saw that they need outside support if they want to hold ground, and Basayev talked him into declaring a sort of Jihad on Russia. Immediately aid from Muslim countires all over the world started pouring in. Most of the aid was money. However a lot of Arabs also went as mercineries, to fight for the rebels' cause.

Most of those mercenaries came from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, among other countries. Unlike the local Chechen separatists, these fighters had little interest in helping the local population. They used Chechnya as a Muslim front against Russia. It was no longer about independence, but about spreading the Jihad and Radical Islam throughout the Caucasus- which is how the second Chechen war started when Chechens attacked Ingushetia and Dagestan.

By the time the second war started, the majority of fighters were actually non-Chechens. Today, by some estimates about 70% of the rebels are non-Chechen insurgents.


By the way, al-Zawahri did not have time to accomplish much in Chechnya. However another Radical Islamic militant did- known just as Khattab. Khattab was known for his utter ruthlessness, and radical religious rhetoric. He personally executed hundreds of Russian POWs, as well as several European humanitarian workers send to help Chechens, and taken hostage for ransom. Together with Basayev he headed most of the operations after Dudayev's death.

www.diacritica.com...

While most of his personal operations were failures, he was known for unsurpassed ruthlessness. He personally beheaded and butchered many Russian and foreign hostages and captures soldiers he came upon. Even most Chechens despised him and saw him as a warlord and a bandit. Fact is, Khattab was yet another CIA creation, as he was previously recruited by CIA to fight Russians in Afganistan. He was poisoned and died in 2002.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by maloy]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Maloy, why is Russia seemingly so pro-Middle Eastern Countries (like Syria and Iran). And why are they arming Islamic fundamentalists (like the leaders of Iran), if they are having problems with Muslim extremists? I never understood this.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The Russians are obviously mobilizing their bombers for a potential pre-emptive strike against the Georgians..

..Putin just accused them of state terrorism..Can't see the Americans liking it though.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy, why is Russia seemingly so pro-Middle Eastern Countries (like Syria and Iran). And why are they arming Islamic fundamentalists (like the leaders of Iran), if they are having problems with Muslim extremists? I never understood this.


Russia can be seen as facing two immediate enemies today. The first one (and arguably the lesser) is Islamic extremism- which is primarily confined to the Caucasus area. However since Beslan there were no high-scale terrorist attacks, because the rebels saw that Beslan dealt a far greater blow to them than it did to Russia (they lost most of international support).

The second enemy is the surrounding US puppets and soon-to-be NATO members. Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, the Baltics, Moldova, and now possibly Ukraine. Although US created coups in these nations based on their War On Terror rhetoric, they have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism- but with strategically surrounding Russia for the future.


So Putin decided to limit Russia's strategy to fighting the enemy which is of greatest national concern- and that would be the aggressive tactics of US and NATO (he stated this fact almost openly on several occasions). So after 2001, Russia turned its attention to limiting US occupation of CIS countries. In order to do this, Putin saw a need to reconcile differences with the Arabs.

However Russia wtill deals only with legit governments, not para military or terrorist organizations. No matter what Americans think- Iran is a legitimate government. Ahmadinejad was elected by the people. So if US deals with tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, why can't Russia do business with Iran? The only remote link you can run between Russia and terrorist organizations is Hezbolah, which receives weapons from Iran's government, which in turn buys technology from Russia.

However Russia is expressedly not taking any stance on Israel/Arab affair. In fact when Putin visited the region, he visited both Hamas, and Israel on the same trip. This sends a message that Russia has no interest in choosing sides. It only acts as an observer.



So in conclusion, the US aggressive foreign policy is seen as more threatening by Russia than the Islamic terrorists. And this is seen not by some amateur politicians, but experienced ex-KGB members, who have studied politics all their life. So this must tell you something about how the rest of the world views the American War On Terror.



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join