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.

 

Russian Air Force commander backs idea of Abkhazia military base

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Russian Air Force commander backs idea of Abkhazia military base


en.rian.ru

MOSCOW, May 15 (RIA Novosti) - The creation of a Russian military base in Georgia's breakaway republic of Abkhazia would increase the security of Russia's borders in the region, Russia's Air Force commander said on Thursday.

Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh proposed on Wednesday that Russia open a military base on its territory.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.rian.ru




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Hope this hasn't already been posted. Did a quick search but didn't find anything.

Russia looks set to place a military base in Giorgia's breakaway state of Abkhazia to assist air defense of the region. Not sure how NATO or the UN will respond to this but I doubt Giorgia will take to it too kindly were it to happen.

en.rian.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Russian Soldiers Ready to Deploy Base in Abkhazia




The Ministry of Defence on Thursday paid much attention to Georgia. The site has a detailed analysis of departments of the state of the armed forces of the CIS member, military capacity, the supply of arms and equipment, a cupola Air Force Colonel General Alexander Zelin of the first high-ranking Russian military commented favourably to a proposal by the Abkhaz leader Sergei Bagapsh place in the unrecognized republic Russian military base. The proposal, made on 14 May, the authorities of Abkhazia motivated by the need to "security guarantees for the development of a small democratic state".

According to the Defense Ministry, USA, Czech Republic, Turkey, Bulgaria and Israel donated to the Georgian military equipment, and build its defence capabilities "has a destabilizing impact on the development of military-political situation in the Transcaucasus region." According to Defense Ministry, Georgia handed over 175 tanks, 126 armoured vehicles, 67 artillery installations, 4 aircraft, 12 helicopters, 8 ships and boats, other weapons. By the planned transfer of 100 armoured vehicles, 14 aircraft, including fighter 4 "Mirage-2000", 15 helicopters, "Black Hawk" and 10 ships of various classes.


It looks like Russia has done its homework in preparation to intervene should Giorgia invade Abkhazia.

To anybody from the region, I hope the situation doesn't escalate to full, armed conflict. The last thing this world needs now is another war with civilians getting caught in the cross-fire.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Georgia accuses Russia of deploying heavy weaponry in breakaway region




TBILISI, Georgia (AP) - Georgia on Sunday accused Russia of deploying heavy weaponry alongside its bolstered peacekeeping forces in a separatist region of Georgia.
Georgia also said it briefly detained five Russian peacekeepers along the administrative border with the Abkhazia region after an accident involving an armored personnel carrier.


Well, if Russia's about to place a military base here, with Abkhazia's blessing, then it's bound to be sending more equipment to the region. Maybe someone better informed than me could explain which military equipment would not ordinarily be sent with peace-keepers.



The tensions have stoked fears of military conflict in Georgia, whose location on a key oil export route makes it a focus of contention between Moscow and the West.


Is this another conflict that is going to be ushered in under the "Oil!" banner so as to pseudo-legitimize NATO's and the US's involvement?

I don't think we can really fault Russia for her concerns about the integrity of Russia's borders should Georgia and Abkhazia have military conflict (yes, I understand there is more to it). What would the US do were a country on her border attacked by one of its neighbors? I reckon the same action.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Boy is it me or does it look like Russia is trying to build another Soviet Union.

I fully realize they have a loose confederation, but I mean back to 60"s style Soviet Union controlled by force/military.

Also, think of the "cold war style" military parade last week in Russia..............



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Do you people fail to realize, or just flat out ignore, that three nations that border Russia (Norway, Estonia and Latvia) are in NATO, with Georgia being armed and accepted as a fourth bordering member?

Do you people fail to realize the missile shield going up in Poland and Czech Republic, well within range of creating a deterrent to Russia's nuclear capabilities?

Do you people fail to realize that the United States has military bases, military facilities or military deployments in countries bordering, or very near, Russia, such as South Korea, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Germany and Turkey, just to name a few?

Now lets all get outraged that Russian military commanders are backing an idea for a military base in Abkhazia!

Lets all accuse Russia of trying to reform the Soviet Union while NATO's membership is at 26, with 14 major allies, and the European Union's membership is at 27!

Lets all accuse Russia of war-mongering because they fly by our Navy ships while we're in two wars and entertaining a third!

Now lets all be hypocrites and demonize actions of historical enemies when our country, and our allies, are doing the same thing, except about a hundred times worse!



[edit on 5/18/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
...Do you people fail to realize that the United States has military bases, military facilities or military deployments in countries bordering, or very near, Russia, such as South Korea, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Germany and Turkey, just to name a few?

Now lets all get outraged that Russian military commanders are backing an idea for a military base in Abkhazia!

Lets all accuse Russia of trying to reform the Soviet Union while NATO's membership is at 26, with 14 major allies, and the European Union's membership is at 27!

Lets all accuse Russia of war-mongering because they fly by our Navy ships while we're in two wars and entertaining a third!

Now lets all be hypocrites and demonize actions of historical enemies when our country, and our allies, are doing the same thing, except about a hundred times worse!
[edit on 5/18/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]


This is exactly the reason I started this thread - Russia is doing nothing that NATO doesn't do. We can't cry foul when Russia puts a base in another country just because it doesn't suit us (rather, our governments can't...because it doesn't suit them).

Going on recent history, the main country that threatens the world with war is the US. I think the US has been the same since before it was given independence.

Most countries just want to get on with things without having to worry about the bickering and meddling of other countries (namely, the US and Britain).



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Here's some more background that helps put this dicussion in perspective. It's long, but if you read the whole thing, I doubt you will find yourself feeling sorry for Russia.

article


When Putin came to power, the world price of crude oil was $16 dollars a barrel; it has now soared to more than $120 dollars - and no one knows where or when this bonanza will end.


But this massive flow of funds into the nation's coffers has not been used "to share the proceeds of growth" with the people; to reduce the obscene gulf in income between the rich and poor.

It has not helped to resurrect a health service which is on its knees (and is ranked by the World Health Organisation as 130th out of the 190 countries of the UN), or to rebuild an education system which is so under-funded that the poor have to pay to get their children into a half-decent school or college.


It has not brought gas and running water to the villages where the peasants have been devastated by the collapse of the collectives, or even developed the infrastructure that a 21st century economy needs to compete with the rest of the world.


Russia may be a member of the G8 whose GDP (because of oil) should soon overtake the United Kingdom, but, in many ways, it is more like a Third World country.


Stricken with an epidemic of AIDS and alcoholism which both contribute to a male life expectancy of 58 years, the population is projected to shrink from 145 million to 120 million within a few decades.


So where has all the oil wealth gone? According to an Independent Experts Report, written by two former high-level Kremlin insiders who have had the courage to speak out, "a criminal system of government [has] taken shape under Putin" in which the Kremlin has been selling state assets cheaply to Putin's cronies and buying others assets back from them at an exorbitant price.

Among such dubious transactions the authors cite the purchase by the state-owned Gasprom (run until a few months ago by Dmitry Medvedev) of a 75 per cent share in an oil company called Sifnet (owned by Roman Abramovich, the oligarch who owns Chelsea Football Club).



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If I were Russia I'd be planting Airbases left, right and center.

NATO practically has the Russkies surrounded with Military installations. That Missile Defence Shield if active will seriously reduce the deterrent capability of their Nuclear Arsenal.

You can't blame them for defending themselves, at least the Russians know not to over step the line and invade other nations without justification.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
at least the Russians know not to over step the line and invade other nations without justification.


Have you ever opened a history book


How do you think that russia got to be the largest country in the world - even after the breakup of the soviet union released many of their conquered territories? And what about eastern europe after World War II? And what about afghanistan?

Russia has always been about conquering neighboring countries.




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


To be honest, I don't see much difference between events in Russia and event elsewhere: some get rich at the expense of the many. The only difference is that the vast amounts of wealth created in Russia were derived out of only a few years of "business" which explains the greater (vast) difference between the rich and the poor.

The U.K produces oil too (as does the US). I don't see profits being given to the U.K people either directly by funding public service or indirectly by lower fuel costs. After all, the oil (and other mineral) reserves of the U.K belonged to the British people until government stole them to sell for vast profits.

I read that the majority of Russians ware happy with Putin and his government - I can't say the same about the U.K and its. Also, isn't the new president some sort of Russian sex symbol?



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rapacity
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I read that the majority of Russians ware happy with Putin and his government - I can't say the same about the U.K and its. Also, isn't the new president some sort of Russian sex symbol?


The article I posted said that, but attributed their "happiness" to their need for "order and stabilty" - which a tyrant will bring to a country - more than their need for "freedom" as we know it in the West.

As for the sex symbol comment, so what? That's a trait of a good democratic leader? I heard Putin was dumping his wife of many years to chase after a gymnast that is young enough to almost be Putin's granddaughter. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This guy Putin is actually doing to russia what so many (wrongfully) fear Bush would do, but so many seem so willing to give Putin a pass. Why?



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211


As for the sex symbol comment, so what? That's a trait of a good democratic leader? I heard Putin was dumping his wife of many years to chase after a gymnast that is young enough to almost be Putin's granddaughter. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This guy Putin is actually doing to russia what so many (wrongfully) fear Bush would do, but so many seem so willing to give Putin a pass. Why?


I'm not saying I agree with you but I will offer an answer, because Putin is Russian. It is the Russian electorate's prerogative to be able to choose who screws them; and many prefer it to be a Russian not an American. Such is democracy.

---

I wasn't saying that a sex symbol is a good indication of a democratic leader (it is a good quality to have if you are a leader, especially with all the women in politics these days.) I said it a little tongue-in-cheek, sorry.

However, Putin is within his right to "trade-in" his wife for a younger model. I'm sure were the roles reversed then his wife might do the same; and culturally, Russia and the West are very different in their views on such matters - a man is a man and a women is a woman, both know there places. Regardless, His private life and public life are two very different things; neither should affect or effect the other. Outsiders should resist the temptation to use (as they see) a man's private failings as a criteria for point scoring in the political arena.

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rapacity
reply to post by centurion1211


As for the sex symbol comment, so what? That's a trait of a good democratic leader? I heard Putin was dumping his wife of many years to chase after a gymnast that is young enough to almost be Putin's granddaughter. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This guy Putin is actually doing to russia what so many (wrongfully) fear Bush would do, but so many seem so willing to give Putin a pass. Why?


I'm not saying I agree with you but I will offer an answer, because Putin is Russian. It is the Russian electorate's prerogative to be able to choose who screws them; and many prefer it to be a Russian not an American. Such is democracy.

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]


Yes, while we sit here and listen to so many vilify Americans for electing Bush, but Putin on the other hand ...

Again, level playing field. Deny hypocrisy.

Have to say that I find your signature philosophically interesting ...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I've always thought that when UN delegates meet, each country should have a SIN#/SSN# raffle or draw, like at the fair. The regular delegates could meet as usual, but they'd be forced to bring along a 'regular' pertson. Atleast for a weekend regular people from other countries could sit and talk about who's president is worse, and probably Brittney Spears!

And yes, I'd even give everyone those cool ear-pieces that translate languages and look so cool



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join