Originally posted by Rasputin13
I've always found this conspiracy to be interesting, and sometimes believable. What I don't understand is that how, if Russia is planning for an
eventual military confrontation with the West, they would be willing to give up so much of their territory (especially strategic territory like the
Well imo you can still 'control' these countries by other means just as empires have done before. Rigging elections and making sure that all the
runners know what they can, and can not, get away with politically speaking will get you the same trade/military benefits without all the normal
and lose most or all of the military hardware and weapons systems in those territories, as well as allow large portions of their navy to rust
away or be sold to developing countries?
Well i have a rather particular idea about all that but it's not really something i wish to present here just yet. Let's just say they may very well
believe that they can win a nuclear exchange or get their way politically without the resources/weapon systems in question. Over time i do believe
they got back most of what the wanted back by one way or another.
Why would they give up their firm grip on power, and the ideology of government being God and the West being their evil enemy which they had
bestowed in their citizens for decades?
Well their grip on power may not have been slipping fast (IMO) but running so large a empire against the will of so many certainly takes a great deal
of resources more than it would to do so by less aggressive and overt ways IMO. Churches were opening in Russian since about the mid 70's if you go
back and look at what some prominent western Church men had to say. The SU were even back than doing some serious reforming at all levels of
government and civil life. While Stalin and gang certainly did call the West names on every occasion it really was not always called for considering
what the West did in the world with or without SU activity in given region. The "propaganda" was mostly true.
Wouldn't this be beneficial when asking their men to go off and die in an unprovoked war against the US?
The whole notion that the SU would have started a unprovoked war against the west is something i do not understand but I'll leave it at that. I like
the presume that humans being mostly humans anywhere you go will fight for their country ( we have been conditioned to do so since birth) whatever the
gods or propaganda invoked against that particular enemy.
And let's assume for a moment that Russia is behind al Qaida and a large amount of terrorist attacks against the US and other Western
Why would we want to do that? The USA have made very many enemies over the last century alone so it really could be almost anyone ( certainly not 20
odd Arabs who left no paperwork behind) or any group of countries in the world. I am sure you are well aware of the massive amount of stock traded in
the sectors that were going to be affected most. That being said it could very well be the Russians.
Wouldn't it have been better if they didn't create a fictional enemy for the US to battle, and to increase its military and domestic security
to wage war against?
Well the US is expending massive resources in simply feeding and moving men around which is not the way you save money or invest in new weaponry and
research. Fighting low intensity type conflicts just saps your strength so if you do not have enough to start with it soon starts hurting. All of this
has made the USA look the bad guy in world affairs and try find Putin going on national TV in Russia claiming that the USA is the devil.
actually JOINED the war on terror and they are making a killing economically on the jump the oil prices took after the start on the 'War on
Even though our military is changing the way it conducts war from the old large scale nation vs. nation battles to combatting terrorism and
using surgical strikes (at least for the most part), wouldn't Russia be better off not having us build up or modernize our military in
Well restructuring for these kinds of conflicts is going to hurt the US no end in a conventional type conflict IMO. Troops and equipment is being worn
out by constant operations and just replacements ( men&machines) is sucking the US military establishment quite dry. They will obviously get
additional funds but operational and deployment spending is very high for any army.
Those are just some of the problems that I have with this theory. Let's also not forget the grand scale of this conspiracy, and how hard it
would be to plan and conduct in modern times.
This is rather subjective since i believe in just such conspiracies. How can establishments like the Federal reserve exists in modern times and run
such simple scams to the detriment of everyone? Global conspiracies are not only possible but not hard to manage once you control certain aspects of
economics and human conditioning IMO. How many people were responsibility for the decisions that forced Japan into a aggressive war of conquest ( or
losing all their national esteem) just a few years ago? How would Hitler have funded his economic reforms and war machine without Wall street
investment? These conspiracies were staged by just a few people.
With all of the defections and spying and whatnot, wouldn't there be more than just a handful of people coming forward to tell of this
conspiracy against the US?
Because the US intelligence establishment would never admit these things publicly. The messenger often gets shot ( first even) so no one likes being
one especially when they were hired by the people who they are supposed to bring the message to. What would the American public do if they were to
realise that the American government have been lying to them about the strength of their enemies for decades? Since the current president can not go
back and change the actions of those before him why would he risk losing all his credibility in the eyes of his citizens and the world? Pride and
general self serving nature of government makes sure that these things can be hidden if the people in the know have a good idea of what will happen to
them if they speak up. Even when some DO speak up they are shouted down by their peers who convinces the public ( who hates surprises and hates to the
fact that they could be fooled so easily) that nothing happened and that it's all one big lie. While the majority serves only themselves the minority
can only do so much to inform people and change perception.
And why aren't we hearing this from anyone in the Western intelligence community? They certainly have double agents inside the Russian
If the intelligence establishments serves the government ( as they do) they have no obligation to ensure that the government tells the people and
since the government is normally unwilling to risk their credibility and jobs they certainly wont. As i have showed it can be proven that the CIA have
lied about Russian ABM programs for decades even while the DIA and others have gone ahead and talked about it openly. In the end you must choose who
to believe and if you are badly informed in general you normally just agree with your peers.
That's just my two cents. I'm no expert on any of these issues, by any stretch of the imagination. I only hope I haven't wasted anyone's
time reading this and I hope you understand what it is I'm trying to illustrate here!
Well few people ( if any) are really experts on anything even if they like thinking they are so I am always suspicious of those who imagine they
understand anything well enough to call themselves 'experts'...... I , for instance, will admit that i am extremely ignorant but i do my best to
convince myself and others that i am less so than them.