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.

 

Former Russian President Yeltsin dies

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Former Russian President Yeltsin dies


news.yahoo.com

MOSCOW - Former President Boris Yeltsin, who engineered the final collapse of the Soviet Union and pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy, has died, a Kremlin official said Monday. He was 76.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This was the man who helped break up the Soviet Union and end the Cold War. Sadly it seems what he, Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachev had built is slowly returning to a potential Cold War as Russia declares that our Missile Defense network threatens their national security.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Ask yourself the reverse question Mike - how would you feel if Russia was to establish military bases near your country...even something like a missile defense system. And again, which move is more alarming and more resembles the cold war motives;

A. The US establishing an anti-missile network right under Russia (this would involve the US having some small bases at those sites)

or

B. Russia opposing the US placing military instalations right next to the Russian border.

Back to the threads title

Yeltsin is dead. I'd toast but it's kinda akward to drink to an alcoholic.
He engineered the collapse of the soviet union and pushed Russia to embrace democracy. Great man he was. There was only one and same problem problem in each and every one of his plans, policies and reforms -
they were sh*t.

Ever wonder why they say "collapse of the soviet union"? Because the grand schemes and plots behind it were equivelant to a smacktard cutting the cables on a suspension bridge. This guy was as much harm to the country as he was to himself. Under no possible circumstances does Yeltsin fall under the section of the good historical figures. This guy deserved to be shot a long time ago.

Regards,
Maestro



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
We have had bases in Turkey, Alaska, Japan, South Korea, and Germany for quite some time now. They are all close to Russia. Placing a Missile site and Radar site in Eastern Europe isnt any different than the same sites in Alaska, Canada and Japan. We have even invited Russia to participate. This is not Russia's version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That happend when we put nukes in Turkey during the Cold War. These are ABM sites not nuclear weapons.

I can see Russia having a problem with that if it expects to be NATO's enemy. We might interfere with some of Russia's plans they have in the future if their Ballistic missiles are useless due to the ABM sites. Instead of seeing NATO as a potential enemy it needs to work with us. We offered our hand and they refused.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Sad that this is the discussion we're having in a thread about a dead Yeltsin but very well.

Ok...befor anything else is said - answer these questions in your next reply.

1. When was the last time that the US has established bases near Russia since the cold war period?

2. Why ask Russia to participate in this missile defense system?

3. Who is this missile defense system protecting and against who (this question is kinda related to the one above)?

4. What was the sole purpose for the creation of NATO?

5. Again, how would you feel if Russian S-300s were right under your border?

6. Did I say this was a version of the Cuban missile crisis?

Quick comment - ask any tactician, he'll tell you that the best defense you can have is a good offense. So rendering Russian balistic missiles useless would be a strategic offensive move (this is not an act of war). That is why it is a threat.

Regards,
Maestro





[edit on 23-4-2007 by maestro46]

[edit on 23-4-2007 by maestro46]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestro46
Sad that this is the discussion we're having in a thread about a dead Yeltsin but very well.

Ok...befor anything else is said - answer these questions in your next reply.

1. When was the last time that the US has established bases near Russia since the cold war period?

2. Why ask Russia to participate in this missile defense system?

3. Who is this missile defense system protecting and against who (this question is kinda related to the one above)?

4. What was the sole purpose for the creation of NATO?

5. Again, how would you feel if Russian S-300s were right under your border?

6. Did I say this was a version of the Cuban missile crisis?

Quick comment - ask any tactician, he'll tell you that the best defense you can have is a good offense. So rendering Russian balistic missiles useless would be a strategic offensive move (this is not an act of war). That is why it is a threat.

Regards,
Maestro





[edit on 23-4-2007 by maestro46]

[edit on 23-4-2007 by maestro46]


It is sad that the partnership that Russia had with the US during the Clinton administration is gone. That was Yeltsin's legacy. Now his legacy is coming to end.

1. Newest US bases close to Russia since the end of the Cold War have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, and one no longer in operation that was in Uzbekistan.

2. Because Russia could be threatened by the same rogue states/terrorists and show our intentions are not directed towards Russia.

3. Its designed to protect NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and potentially India. Against North Korea and Iran at the moment.

4. The protect the West against the USSR.

5. Depends on what they were doing there and if we had any part of it. Sitting in Venezuela or Cuba would make me suspicious. Their sole purpose could only be to thwart a US air attack. If they were in different countries I would be less suspicious and not suspicious at all if we were working with them.

6. No you didnt say it was, but I feel Russia may be trying to make it out that way.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
- Now the bases you have just listed are minor, you know this. Niether are they in any way a threat. Mind you Afghanistan Bosnia, and Kosovo are not close to Russia unless you're looking at a very small map.

- Russia could be threatened by terrorist org.s? I'm sorry is this acknowlegement I hear? Pal while the world was swept by a wave of terrorism in 2000 Russia was already on this front in the late 90s. And yes, I do mean chechnya. No, the motives of this war were not anti-terrorism, but the conflict spawned alot of it. And mind you Chechen terrorists are regarded as rebels, freedom fighters, and good people over all by alot of the western media. Not to mention they do not fall into the list of known terrorist org.s with the US or UK. This did start to change after Beslan, but not a whole lot. So try to tell me that the US is aiming to work together against terrorism with Russia by building an anti-balistic missile defense in eastern europe. Does that even make sense? I mean that could be your opinion on the matter but it's certainly no fact. And when was the last time terrorists used balistic missiles?

- Mate both Iran and NK use Ruski tech (and some of their own ofcourse). If the US has ever felt a missile threat from any country in the world it was the USSR, and now Russia. Why? Cause we are one of the few countries with good enough missiles and enough warheads to match the US. It's not NK, it's not Iran. Furthermore we're not certain of nukes in Iran and NK is under close watch by the US AND CHINA. You wanna go to war over imaginary nukes like in Iraq where the invasion was about imaginary WMDs? Stressing it again, any significant and real threat to the US comes from the Ruski missiles. Ruskies don't have to even be agressive in this case. Just possesing these missiles is enough. Same as the brits never wanted anyone to match their navy. This entire paragraph I'm trying to make it clear to you that this move is in fact directed against Russia as I explained in my comment in the previous post.

- Exactly, and now since there is no USSR what is left is Russia. It takes all the blame for the USSR, and sometimes all the credit despite the fact that many republics were once part of it and it's leaders weren't always Russia. Nonetheless Russia is now what NATO is keeping checked at all times. Russia is now the potential threat to Europe now that it's econ and military is rising. Like I said befor, they do not have to flex their muscles or be agressive; just matching someone in military strength and econ is enough to worry them. So why would Russia be participating in a military project which neutralizes thier missile offensive capabilities again?

- Suspicion is not in question. Alright, I guess you just don't get what I'm asking here. Just tell me have you lived outside the US ever? Not even necissarily that but ever even tried to look at it's foreign policies from a different perspective? I suppose the easiest way to ask this question is how would you feel if some other different country was countering, blocking, or preventing in certain ways the capabilities of your country. I doubt you would be happy (i'm not even talking military wise here).

- again, see the very last part of my previous post.


Regards,
Maestro



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I actually take back some of the critique I put on yeltsin there. He did protect the country from falling back into communism. And yes he was the one who held the reforms. Crap as they were they had to start somewhere.I suppose I will never forgive him chechnya however. Boys, young boys, thousands of them died there and for nothing. I just watced BBC state that this was a war that was highly supported in Russia and that's why Yeltsin went ahead with it. BS. No mother would ever support putting her son at risk.

Let me tell you guys something. The Russian soldiers in chechnya were...they were sent to get slaughtered. The greenest of the rookies were sent, tech that was poorly maintained or unfit for service was given to their disposal. And while these soldiers would be screaming into their radios while surrounded the goverment officials would be gowing around clubs at night toasting to their good lives and never giving a dam. These boys were drunk away. Their souls flushed down with a shot glass. What sort of an idiot starts a war after his country falls apart>? If this was the price the reforms in Russia came with along with it's "freedom" let me tell you it was NOT worth it. It was not worth the lives of the soldiers that died in chechnya and Yeltsin's hands are red up to the elbows with it. He sold this country out no less. I'm not even taking sides in this war. It is as much a tragedy of the Russian people as it is for the chechens. And it isn't entirely Yeltsin's fault, there were other officials in the goverment. But history will have his name behind it, and it was his words behind the final order. I don't think I can ever forgive him.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestro46
- Now the bases you have just listed are minor, you know this. Niether are they in any way a threat. Mind you Afghanistan Bosnia, and Kosovo are not close to Russia unless you're looking at a very small map.

- Russia could be threatened by terrorist org.s? I'm sorry is this acknowlegement I hear? Pal while the world was swept by a wave of terrorism in 2000 Russia was already on this front in the late 90s. And yes, I do mean chechnya. No, the motives of this war were not anti-terrorism, but the conflict spawned alot of it. And mind you Chechen terrorists are regarded as rebels, freedom fighters, and good people over all by alot of the western media. Not to mention they do not fall into the list of known terrorist org.s with the US or UK. This did start to change after Beslan, but not a whole lot. So try to tell me that the US is aiming to work together against terrorism with Russia by building an anti-balistic missile defense in eastern europe. Does that even make sense? I mean that could be your opinion on the matter but it's certainly no fact. And when was the last time terrorists used balistic missiles?

- Mate both Iran and NK use Ruski tech (and some of their own ofcourse). If the US has ever felt a missile threat from any country in the world it was the USSR, and now Russia. Why? Cause we are one of the few countries with good enough missiles and enough warheads to match the US. It's not NK, it's not Iran. Furthermore we're not certain of nukes in Iran and NK is under close watch by the US AND CHINA. You wanna go to war over imaginary nukes like in Iraq where the invasion was about imaginary WMDs? Stressing it again, any significant and real threat to the US comes from the Ruski missiles. Ruskies don't have to even be agressive in this case. Just possesing these missiles is enough. Same as the brits never wanted anyone to match their navy. This entire paragraph I'm trying to make it clear to you that this move is in fact directed against Russia as I explained in my comment in the previous post.

- Exactly, and now since there is no USSR what is left is Russia. It takes all the blame for the USSR, and sometimes all the credit despite the fact that many republics were once part of it and it's leaders weren't always Russia. Nonetheless Russia is now what NATO is keeping checked at all times. Russia is now the potential threat to Europe now that it's econ and military is rising. Like I said befor, they do not have to flex their muscles or be agressive; just matching someone in military strength and econ is enough to worry them. So why would Russia be participating in a military project which neutralizes thier missile offensive capabilities again?

- Suspicion is not in question. Alright, I guess you just don't get what I'm asking here. Just tell me have you lived outside the US ever? Not even necissarily that but ever even tried to look at it's foreign policies from a different perspective? I suppose the easiest way to ask this question is how would you feel if some other different country was countering, blocking, or preventing in certain ways the capabilities of your country. I doubt you would be happy (i'm not even talking military wise here).

- again, see the very last part of my previous post.


Regards,
Maestro


Bagram in Afghanistan isnt that small at all. I have been there. Theres close to a divison of troops and lots of aircraft. Apparently they finally extended the run way to allow C-5 Galaxies to land, which would explain how the Canadians got their Leopard main battle tanks into Afghanistan. Bosnia and Kosovo are fairly small. The one thats being built up in Bulgaria is huge, its an old Soviet base. It will only be used by rotational units though, not any permanent station. Ive been to it too.

I acknowledge that the Chechens are terrorists. I know some people in the West seemed to be really ignorant of them, but we are fighting Chechens in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish President Bush would acknowledge that Chechnya is another front in the War On Terror. It truly is one if anyone did any research.

I can see how it could appear that it would be directed towards Russia. My opinon is that the ABM sites would prevent the need to invade nations like Iran and North Korea.

We dont even train to fight the Russians anymore. All of our training is centered on counter guerilla and urban warfare. There isnt even a Cold War environment in the military anymore. Alot of us in the military have respect for Russia, President Putin, the Russian military and the War against the Chechen terrorists. A number of us value how conservative Russia is compared to America's very liberal culture. A number of us are also impressed with how President Putin has worked to improve his nation. I understand their are politicians and industrialists who dont feel this way though. Which bothers me as I feel Russia and the US would benefit more
from working together than against each other.

Actually I live outside the US right now In Germany and have so for three years. I have also been in Afghanistan for a year. I can see your point where theres been various amounts of criticism against the War in Chechnya, President Putin, etc from the West.

All I can say is if I was in charge the ABM sites would be a joint US-Russian program. I dont feel Russia is a threat personally. I am more afraid of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and China.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Check my thread here;
www.abovepolitics.com...
pages 3-5 should give you teh best outline. It has some mention of this treaty. US intentions are very different from what you might think (that's only my opinion).

You're no longer trained to fight Russians because the country is in ruins compared to it's old state. The military is in a mess. Then there's chechnya. The US knows they don't have to worry about the ruski tanks now. Which leaves only ABMs for Russia to go on the offensive with...for now.

Russia and the US would accomplish alot...I can't see them working together fully hand in hand ever however. The entire goverments of both sides would have to do a 180% turn. That and they're both superpowers. Russia is comming back to that status. There's no room in the world for 2 superpowers. Not saying they'll kill each other but they will always be stepping on each other's interests one way or another. As for US relations with any country atm...I think bush did a great job of creating a lovely image of america to the world. It will take some time to fix the damage he cause to the name of the US.

I fail to see how an ABM shield would prevent an invasion into Iran.

Afghanistan is a conflict zone...correct me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't know how hostile it really is. Bulgaria - thanks for the info.

I'm glad you agree on the chechenia's terrorism.

regards,
maestro



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by maestro46
Check my thread here;
www.abovepolitics.com...
pages 3-5 should give you teh best outline. It has some mention of this treaty. US intentions are very different from what you might think (that's only my opinion).

You're no longer trained to fight Russians because the country is in ruins compared to it's old state. The military is in a mess. Then there's chechnya. The US knows they don't have to worry about the ruski tanks now. Which leaves only ABMs for Russia to go on the offensive with...for now.

Russia and the US would accomplish alot...I can't see them working together fully hand in hand ever however. The entire goverments of both sides would have to do a 180% turn. That and they're both superpowers. Russia is comming back to that status. There's no room in the world for 2 superpowers. Not saying they'll kill each other but they will always be stepping on each other's interests one way or another. As for US relations with any country atm...I think bush did a great job of creating a lovely image of america to the world. It will take some time to fix the damage he cause to the name of the US.

I fail to see how an ABM shield would prevent an invasion into Iran.

Afghanistan is a conflict zone...correct me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't know how hostile it really is. Bulgaria - thanks for the info.

I'm glad you agree on the chechenia's terrorism.

regards,
maestro


I can see where it seems some people in the West are not being sensitive enough to Russia's interests. I think in order for the ABM program to work there will have to be a compromise on both sides. IF that ever happens I dont know, but without it the ABM program at least for Europe will be in jeopardy. I think the best way would be compromises over Ukraine, Iran, Chechnya, and Georgia.

I agree with Russia's Oil and Gas it will be Superpower again, probably before China. China's just has people and industry. Russia has industry and its own resources, with enough left over to export.

The way it would prevent an invasion is with the ABM network their Ballistic missiles including nuclear warheads if they ever build them would be useless. Thus no need for the US to go in and take them out.

Its going take awhile to fix America's image, it was hurt badly during and after Vietnam though and we recovered.

Afghanistan is a warzone. Most of the conflict is on the Pakistani border though. Bagram is up north, its an old Soviet base. Not really any fighting around it.




top topics



 
2

log in

join