Russian military is not Prepared for any real War

[ronin308]

Tiger, I was comparing the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to Vietnam, not our forces that are there now.  That said we have the same problem in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq which is to ensure that a stable democratic government is in place before we pull out.

That way the terrorists lose one more country the can count on for support.  Of course we also need to understand democracy can be wierd as recent events in Palestine have shown us.

[ronin308]

Elen your paranoia is truley sad.  Do you realize that most Americans now see Russia as a friend and potential ally not an enemy? 

I used the invasion of Ukraine as an example of something that would trigger a response from the US. 

Elen, you really have no understanding of history, it's kind of sad in a way I guess.  The US has never invaded a country for it's resources.  Russia did as a part of the Soviet Union so which country has a higher possibility of doing so?

It's really sad that what could be a good relationship between two strong nations might be ruined by paranoia and embedded fear.

[TigerPaws]

Elen,    

Well if you are not threat to us then why bother with good army? To other hand if we are not a threat to you then why do you bother with NATO at our boards ?

 
[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]Elen,[/size][/color]    [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 You asked the questions above, in  case you were not aware we (the U.S.) are at war and that should answer your  questions.

 
[/size][/color]

[Elen]

Elen your paranoia is truley sad.  Do you realize that most Americans now see Russia as a friend and potential ally not an enemy?

Yeah? May be because it's not we but you place military bases at our boders Give me even one example of your "friendship" and I may be change my paranoid mind (btw it's not only me have such kind of mind here FAAAR from only me)

Well Irags are paranoid too I guess as you NEVER invided countries because of oil you only brought true democracy  into places where enough oil for democracy  

Russia did as a part of the Soviet Union so which country has a higher possibility of doing so?

What countries for example?

[Elen]

Well if you are not threat to us then why bother with good army? To other hand if we are not a threat to you then why do you bother with NATO at our boards ?
Elen,    
 You asked the questions above, in case you were not aware we (the U.S.) are at war and that should answer your questions.

 

I asked you What 9/11 had to do with OUR boders? ( if in addition to all nonsence we are NOT a threat to you anymore due to our complite weakness now)

[coco]

Europe is not prepared for a war too.And in Damascus the Scandinavien embassies are burning.

[jinx13]

It's amazing to me how arrogant we Americans can be at times. Last night I was watching the 9/11 commision report on the History Channel and I was shocked at just how unprepared we were for an attack. You guys talk about how great our technology is, what good did it do on 9/11? It was complete chaos, with failures to enforce the most basic security measures, and a total lack of leadership during a crisis of historic magnitude. Imagine George Bush's blank face as he was told of the towers being hit, and then he was flying around in Air Force One with no destination, and he had lost communication with the ground (yeah great technology) We were beat that day by 19 guys with box knives, and you don't think Russia stands a chance against us?

Russia has endured more hardships in war than we can ever even comprehend and they have always managed to survive and even conquer. I can imagine the Germans saying the same thing, 'oh they are no match for us, they have a peasant army and we are a modern military machine' Germany thought they would just walk right into Moscow or Stalingrad, but they were mistaken, partly because of the bitter winter, but mostly because of the strength and determination of the Russian people.

Maybe you also haven't read any reports about how thin our army is currently, nobody is joining right now, and can you blame them, who wants to go to Iraq and die for nothing? To say that we didn't invade Iraq because of oil is a joke, do you think we would really give a shit about Kuwait if they didn't have oil too? Historicaly the U.S. does come to the aid of others in the face of tyranny, but in this case it was all about the oil, and maybe a little revenge for daddy Bush.

I love my country, but I can also see it's faults and i'm not foolish enough to call Russia a weak country.  - David

 

 

 

 

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Say what you will about the 1st Gulf War but it wasn't just about Petrol.  We considered the Saudis and Kuwaitis as friends and allies and went to help them.  By your twisted logic the only reason the US was involved in World War II was to protect it's market share in Europe.

Never say this about the first Gulf War... Kowait was attacked... but what about the last war... USA have attack Irak, start a war for impose his own politic view... Now, immagine that Russia become again communist, maybe you can attack it because you don't like communist... I don't think that USA is enough crazy for make it but if russia was enough weak, maybe you can try... Sorry to say this but from several post on these forum, i can see that USA don't think in term of peace, they love war...

Bruno, the fact that you laugh at our protests over 1000 dead really shows your ignorance.  The people who are upset about the casualties would be protesting if even 1 person were.  The protests have to do with the fact that not everyone in this country understands why we invaded Iraq the second time, the protestors use the body count to further justify their actions.  You should note there are very few protests over our invasion of Afgahnistan since most feel it was a legitimate response.

Not only in USA, here people don't understand these attack... USA have ask help to the NATO but since the evidence was no true, NATO say "no"... and USA say : we go alone... what for a partner are you, when the majority of country in YOUR created NATO refuse to make war,... you break accord, you use chantage, economical blocus to european country, start war on your own... You consider us like friend when we agree with you but we are not more your friend when we have a other meaning... Afgahnistan was a international fight, with support of NATO... Irak is a act of war from USA...

The US has proven in the past that when the chips are on the table we will support those in battle.  AFter all look at US casualties during WWII and tell me we are weak and not willing to lose our own men. 

Russian have repulse german... have pay a heavy load in dead people... and without them, if they have not resist, Hilter have take without problem all Europa and USA was not able to make something... to much people have underestimate the role of russian in the WWII... without them, i was certainly german now...

As to getting blood on your hands, as I stated above, the idea behind the high tech methods is to reduce casualties on the friendly side.  You will still need soldiers to hold the ground.  The difference is that it's a lot easier to take and hold ground when the entire armoured column supporting that Motorized Rifle Division is destroyed in less than 30 minutes.  The when the US armour column rolls in they have 2 choices surrender or be slaughtered.

Slaughtered is the right word... russian have know similar situation with german... German was with tank, russian cosac with horse... the russian was slaughtered but they have stop tank with horse and molotov cocktail... it is a big difference between a soldat who make some job in foreign country or a soldat who defend his own country...

They seem to not really understand the term friends, for them everything is based on strength.

You don't become a friend from Russian because of a big smile on your face, specialy when you try hide a knife on your back... russian people need evidence of friendship...

[Bruno]

[user=783]jinx13[/user] wrote:

Russia has endured more hardships in war than we can ever even comprehend and they have always managed to survive and even conquer. I can imagine the Germans saying the same thing, 'oh they are no match for us, they have a peasant army and we are a modern military machine' Germany thought they would just walk right into Moscow or Stalingrad, but they were mistaken, partly because of the bitter winter, but mostly because of the strength and determination of the Russian people.

 

[TigerPaws]

[user=783]jinx13[/user] wrote:

I love my country, but I can also see it's faults and i'm not foolish enough to call Russia a weak country.  -

 David

[color="#0000ff"][size="4"]David,[/size][/color]     [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 From an offensive military  standpoint Russia is incapable of fielding more than 2 fully equipped reasonably  modern armor divisions, they can barely keep thier aircraft flying and their  entire militaries C3 (Command, Control & Communications) is less that our 4  Armor Division alone.[/size][/color]      [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]
 
 As a home defense force they have  the capabilities to put down any public uprising, but then again the vast  majority of the Russian public is unarmed so that is not saying too  much.[/size][/color]     [color="#0000ff"][size="4"]

 [/size][size="4"]If you are interested much of this  information is not classified and available to the general public including our  oun (U.S.) Department of Defence assessment on the current Russian military as  of mid 2005[/size][/color]

[jinx13]

Tigerpaw,

You can quote stats all day long but they don't mean a whole lot when it comes down to it. I think Russia would surprise you with how quickly they could muster a significant and powerful military.

Throughout history intelligent people have made the mistake of underestimating their foe , not saying Russia is a enemy anymore, this is just for the sake of discussion. I guess you didn't get the point that our Belgium friend and I made about Germany, and how they also thought Russia didn't have a fighting chance.

Read your history books, how many times has a battle seemed lopsided numbers wise, but the seemingly weaker opponent is victorious? Think Alexander the Great against the Persians, or Julius Ceaser and the Gauls, or even in the modern age N. Vietnam vs U.S. or Afghanistan vs Russia. Stats and numbers mean nothing, especially when people will do anything to defend their homes and family.

It seems like most Americans you think we can not be defeated, that we are invincible, I guess you didn't learn anything from 9/11. In another time the Romans thought they were invincible too but they were brought down by "barbarians" uncivilized people with far less superior weaponry, does this sound familiar?

 

 

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]jinx13,

 After a full career in our Air Force I beleive I speak with some measure of understanding you lack, Russia today is only a threat to themselves, look it up but then again  that would confuse you with cold hard facts vs. your [/size][/color][color="#0000ff"][size="4"]preconceived notions.[/size][/color]

[Oosik]

Rvr, what does russia have military technonology wise that is superior to ours? I was just in a russian military city, and based on what I saw and my extensive discussions with people, russian technology is limited by the requirement to make things vodka-proof. By that I mean whatever they build must be robust enough that a drunken factory worker can make it, a drunken inspector can pass it, and a drunked or poorly trained conscript must be able to operate it. Robustness is all-important, NOT QUALITY.
 Hence the super realiable, but not long lasting nor particularly accurate AK-47.

Also, when I was over there, I saw an army unit hauling a artillary piece around with enough rust on it that the Lt. would be court martialled in the US. If you cannot keep a field gun from becoming pockmarked with rust, how can you keep an electronic missle launcher in top operating form?

Also, the point about how our enlisted men have so much authority is a good one. That is also key to any conflict. The soviet system did not trust enlisted men, and treated them like cannon fodder. Our troops are the best trained in the world, and with our pro-military US attitudes, we don't hamstring them like many other nations do. We are willing to risk having an E-3 call in an airstrike, or having E-5's with keys to nuclear weapons lockers, etc. Heck, When I was an E-3 in the Navy, I was the senior man on a .50 cal machine gun as we passed by a soviet missile frigate 300 yards away. I could have opened fire and practically started WWIII. I bet on the soviet ship the men didn't have that much power. Which also means if they needed to act fast, they wouldn't be able to.

Regarding the protesters, their leadership supported the USSR agianst the USA, so now when they support the terrorists against the USA (yes, they frame it differently, but it boils down to it) we should keep in mind that the protests have nothing to do with the actual events on the ground. Unfortunately, the Media support of the protestors does weaken us, totalitarian countries (Russia is on the edge by our standards) don't have to worry about such things.

[Lysander]

Why does Russia need an "offensive millitary capabilty?" According to  TigerPaws, Russia's millitary is sufficient for home defense. What more  does it need? So far today, only one country (not Russia) claims it  needs to maintain global millitary superiority from the Baltic Sea to  the Straights of Taiwan to the Persian Gulf in order to ensure its  'security.' Most countries are content to be strong enough to fend off  attacks on their soil.

Russia is much better off maintaining what they need for defense than  wasting valuable resources trying to gain influence in far off parts of  the world. Other countries may soon come to learn this lesson.

Russia can of course maintain an arms industry and sell weapons to China and India if it is profitable.

Lysander

[Rvrwind]

Oosik asked:

Rvr, what does russia have military technonology wise that is superior to ours?

Although what you may have seen was an old rusted complex, I assure you that is changing. Slowly, but it is changing. As new technologies are discovered & funds become available they are upgrading the entire military from the Ground Forces to the Air Force & Navy. At present Moscow is protected by an entire division of anti aircraft missiles of the 5th generation, all brand new & very effective systems.

There are still isolated incidents of violence one of the most recent I decided not to post about because of its gruesome nature which I fully admit sickened me & many others. It has caused a big outcry here for much quicker reforms & even Putin has jumped up to say that this will no longer be tolerated & the guilty will be severly punished.

In answer to your question I will start a new thread in my area under News from the Front & entitle it Military Armament & Technology. Here I will post several of the most current articles I have in my archives dating back to November of last year. I do have several hundred articles that cover various topics but will refrain from posting them all. In future I will pick the best ones that come to me & add them to this column & you will see over time how the Armed Forces in Russia are quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with, both in technology & fighting spirit. I may also throw in the occaisional article as is the first one in this batch that is more Military Cooperation than the former column title but of some interest I should think, non the less. I warn you this installment is long & will take some reading, I hope you enjoy it.

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner

[andrewfi]

Of course a negative comparison between a 'middle class' nation suich as Russia and the USA is pointless and serves only to highlight the issues of the poster. The roles are very different., The US is trying to maintain an impossible role, one successfully managed by only one nation since the Romans...

The Russian armed forces are no longer maintained for force projection, indeed, it is arguable whether they actually ever were. But in relation to their likely needs, the Russian forces are more than adequate to their task in all aspects other than sheer manpower. Of course, if you beleive that the US is likely to attack Russia, or visa then a comparison is worthwhile, but I think that most of us would regard either scenario as unlikely in the extreme.

The Russian armed forces are as able to meet their most probable roles at least as well as the US is meeting theirs. (however you might judge that one!) Does that mean things are perfect? Far from it. But talk to folk 'in the know' around here and one might have a slightly different assessment of Russian capabilities than from soi-disant military experts on internet discussion boards.

[Oosik]

Jinx, you need to stop watching CNN.

The army has beeen meeting INCREASED recruiting goals for quite a few months now, and the re-enlistment rate is higher than goal, particularly for troop serving in Iraq. The Marines have met recruiting goals since 9/11 no problem. As far as a few thugs keeping us busy in Iraq, that is only because we don't really feel threatened by them, we are willing to take a few (yes, FEW) casualties in order to score points with the people. If it was a knock-down drag out fight, we could be through Iraq, Iran and Syria in a couple of months, with few of their men left alive to fight on. Ask the guys who have been there.

I just had a recruiter here in the school. He told kids point blank if they join, they will probably go to Iraq. We still have probably 10% of our Jr's and Sr's that will join, even as our Guard unit is going to deploy there this month. Yup, Eskimo infantrymen going to Iraq, a whole National Guard unit of them.

We ain't broken, the Army isn't broken, not by a long shot. And that's without the draft.

Elen, please keep in mind that the USSR forced (with violence or threat of it) border countries to serve as pawns in any possible war with the west. We are putting these border nations in NATO so that any future russian dictatorship cannot pull the same stunt. Your country cannot yet be trusted to become a peaceful member of the world community. The fact that Putin is still buddy buddy with Iran and Syria, and is playing footsie with China is proof of that. Let's see a free and fair election, where Putin gives up power without a fight, and let's see the press become more free. Then we will know for sure.

I do agree that the most likely scenario for US vs Russia is Russia invading a border country like Ukraine. More likely the US would help if China attacks. But I wonder, if China attacks us, or Taiwan, or S. Korea, would Russia help us or would Putin play it for profit?

[Lysander]

Oosik, the Army just stop-lossed an additional 50,000 troops just last  January...not for the first time. Also, the Active duty Army raised the  age maximum to 39 from 34 just 2 weeks ago. The Army reserve did the  same last March. Those are not the actions of a millitary with all the  volunteers it needs.

As for "a FEW casualties," we are suffering KIAs at a rate that is less  than but comparable to the Red Army in Afghanistan. 2250 KIA in 2  years/10 months compared to 14,000 in 10 years. If you count wounded,  they may very well be tha same...and this in a country that has no  terrain suitable for guerilla warfare, and does not have a major  outside sponsor...don't bother mentioning Iran or Syria. I mean a REAL  sponsor ready to give laser guided antitank weapons, armor piercing  sniper rifles and the latest in shoulder launched SAMs...as the U.S.  did for the Afghans 1979-1989. The U.S. can ofcourse resort to (even  more) extreme brutality. But keep in mind the Soviets killed 1-3  million afghans and still lost. Are you prepared to do something even  more barbaric than that? And if yes, can we be "trusted to be a  peaceful memeber of the world community?"

Not to mention that 2 former Secretaries of Defense in 2 separate  studies, both comissioned by the Pentagon,  just came to the  conclusion that the Army is under severe stress.

As for the draft...good luck! There are going to be a whole lot more Canadian posters on these boards.

Lysander

[Rvrwind]

Your country cannot yet be trusted to become a peaceful member of the world community. The fact that Putin is still buddy buddy with Iran and Syria, and is playing footsie with China is proof of that.

Oosik this has to be the most absurd statement I have ever read. I cannot fathom an American who is a teacher would bring this up with your own countries past history. Gotta say that takes nerve.

Lets see, where should I start, well I could go way back to the 1800's I believe it was when you tried unsuccessfully to attack Canada & we kicked your ass all the way back to DC but we'll let that slide being as it was well before you & I were born. Skip ahead to the 1970's & 80's when the USA was selling & suppling arms to well guess who, your good buddy So Damn Insane that you turned turncoat on & now have him on trial. Should I also mention Osama Bin Ladin who you also so graciously sold arms to & financed for how many years & now your chasing him all over hells half acre trying to hunt him down like a dog.

You created these fanatics & you expect the rest of the damn world to help you fight them. I think before you start saying Russia can't be trusted you best take a good hard look at the Whitehouse because either your uniformed or your just plain arrogant. Learn from your own history before you accuse anybody else of wrongdoing. By the way, something else you probably are not aware of. There are around 1,000 American soldiers operating in Georgia, why? To stir the pot thats why.

Why didn't the US go after Saudia Arabia after 9-11 considering 9 of the highjackers were Saudi's. I'll tell you why, they already are getting their oil so why bother. You can bullshit your friends & I'll bullshit mine but lets not bullshit each other. You made Saddam & got pissed when he wouldn't cooperate and you did the same with Bin Ladin, so you taught the world a lesson, don't deal with the US unless you can defend yourself because they may turn on you even when you ain't in the wrong.

By the way, those countries Russia is selling arms to, Syria, Turkey, Korea. Who do you think their biggest competitor is, you guessed it, the good ole US of A.

Those are the facts, so who can't be trusted to be a part of the world community? A country who puts it out there & everbody knows their intentions or a country that hides behind a mask of friendship & prosperity & then bombs the crap out of you the first time you disagree with them & lie on top of that to get the rest of the world to help them. Well I'd say thats a no brainer.

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner

[Oosik]

Rvr, you are off your rocker. Osama hated the US from the start, and as a near billionaire, he did not need nor get money from us.

Saddam got help from us because at the time he was opposing Iran, which was the greater evil. We did not make him, he learned his philoshophy in France, and pulled a coup in a country cobbled together by Britain. The US had nothing to do with it.

We did not go after Saudi Arabia because there was no evidence that the govt was supporting terrorism. We have been putting intense pressure on them because they had not exactly been fighting it. Please remember that Al Queda did attack people in S.A., because they oppose the Saudi gov't, and have said so pubclicly. I bet you just spouted off about the Saudi's without knowing that.

2,000 dead in 5 years is very little, when you look at 15,000 dead in one summer in France due to a lack of air conditioning, or one thousand dead in N.O. due to a corrupt local political machine. Crying over 2k war dead only convinces the terrorists that westerners are wussies.

You are plain wrong when you try to say we are competing to sell weapons to Syria. For you to say that just shows you have an agenda that is so strong truth matters not. Every terrorist group in the world uses russian rifles. The fact that you reached out and named some other countries that I did not list to make your point shows that you are not prepared to be honest.

All of these idiotic points of yours do not deny the fact that Russia is unstable and we don't know which way they are going. If you want to draw a moral equivilancy between the US and the USSR, or between the US and a possible Russian Dictatorship, then you are simply unhinged and there is no point to this. Your attack gets us right into the fruitless anti-US bashing that gets me in trouble for defending. I'll let others respond if you feel like keeping it up.

[Bruno]

For you to say that just shows you have an agenda that is so strong truth matters not. Every terrorist group in the world uses russian rifles.

It is business...

AK-47 are very cheap and terrorist by them...

American rifle are a little more expensive and gouverment from third-world country buy them...

Belgium rifle ( P-90 ) are very expensive and USA buy them...

And all make Belgium is count the $$$ and try to make the peace in the world... i am not really sure that our gouverment wish really peace because they sell weapons...

War is not only good for the weapon industry... who have the best contract for the reconstruction of Irak ? Foreign compagny !

All this is simply dirty business...

 

[Lysander]

Oosik, 2250 dead + 16000 wounded in under 3 years is significant for a  volunteer army that spends copiously on each soldier and has a limited  amount of them...so much so that the same soldiers and marines can be  sent on 2nd, 3rd and possibly soon 4th tours of duty in Iraq. Out of  150,000 troops in Iraq, it balances out to about a 1.25 % chance of  dying and a 10% chance of injury. This casualty rate, should it  continue, is not sustainable for several more years. The enemy already  knows this and so does the Pentagon. Hence all this talk about Iraqis  suddenly capable of handling their own security and that we may be able  to reduce troop numbers this year...even as daily attacks increase.

It is true that 2000 dead out of a total U.S. population of 300 million  doesn't seem like much. But the U.S. population isn't fighting the war;  the millitary is and mostly the Army and Marines.

Full Disclosure; I am, as you might have guessed, opposed to the war  and would still oppose it even if American casualties were zero.

Best Wishes,
Lysander

[jb]

Richard wrote, 

Lets see, where should I start, well I could go way back to the 1800's I believe it was when you tried unsuccessfully to attack Canada & we kicked your ass all the way back to DC

All I can say is:  Huh??!!  I'm a pretty serious history buff and I recall nothing about a serious armed conflict between the USA and Canada during the early 1800's which had Canadian troops across the border, much less in the vicinity of Washington DC.  We did have British troops marching on DC in the War of 1812, in fact, they burned the White House and generally made a nuisance of themselves until they tangled with General Andrew (Stonewall) Jackson at New Orleans.  However, that war was principally over the Brits boarding American merchant ships and impressing US civilian sailors into the British navy.  The British had also blockaded a number of French ports which interferred with US trade over seas, which had caused problems for two previous years. During that time, the American General, Hull, did make a border crossing into Canada and was defeated, he surrendered in Detroit, not DC.

There was also the Indian Stream Border War in New Hampshire in 1830, is that what you are referring to?  If that's the incident you meant, no Canadians were involved in that one, just a bunch of New Hampshire settlers living along the US/Canada border who wanted to be Canadian instead of American.  IIRC, pro-Canadians settlers attacked and routed two sheriffs from New Hampshire and about 50 militia men were sent in to "win" the war.  All in all, there were less than 400 people, men, women,and children, involved in the whole thing.   

But that's the only thing I can recall within the 1800 time frame you mentioned.  There was activity along the border during the French Indian War much earlier, but that involved British troops, remember, we didn't seperate from Brittian until 1776.

Unless you can provide something specific I'm gonna call you wrong on that one, Rvr, the USA and Canada have never had a war that was recorded in any of my history books.



    

[andrewfi]

That's the one. The US declared war upon Great Britain, hoping ot take advantage of French adventures in Europe and invaded Canada, US forces were repulsed and the forces of Britain marched as far South as Boston and made a landing in the Battle of New Orleans. The whole thing ended in a stalemate that confirmed US independence and taught the US not to invade Canada. Of course, the Battle of New Orleans occured after the end of the war marked by the treaty of Ghent.

[Rvrwind]

Andrew nailed it...thats the one.

They may have been British troops but it was Canada.

Rvr, you are off your rocker. Osama hated the US from the start, and as a near billionaire, he did not need nor get money from us.

Maybe no cash but the US did supply weapons to him that is well documented.

As for Saddam, well,they could have taken him out anytime without starting a war & without levelling most of the country, but then again that wouldn't have guarranteed them the oil.  War is good for the economy, stimulates growth & a lot of job openings & war mongers like Bush are well aware of that fact.

And now he wants Iraq, mmmmm, I see a trend developing.

As for Syria I ain't positive but I do know that as I write this the US & Russia are competing in arms sales to Korea & Turkey. In fact Russia is worried that they may loose the Turkish deal to the US which will loose them about 10 billion $'s. See below:

Entrance of the US into the Indian market may hinder the plans of large-scale supplies of Russian armament to India. Makienko comments, "So far, large-scale supplies of American weapons are hindered by the export limitations existing in the US. Lately, India has practiced mixed schemes implying purchase of relatively small batches of military products and obtaining of licenses for local production. For reassigning of licenses for production of modern systems to Delhi, Washington would have to change the status of India for the status of main non-NATO partner. Even if the US decides to follow this path this will be a long process." In any case, according to the expert, lately the US Administration has planned to include India into the so-called anti-Chinese contour capable of resistance of the military power of Beijing. Besides India, this "contour" may include South Korea, Japan, Mongolia and Vietnam. In this case, Delhi will be able to receive the desired status very soon and may start buying the most modern American armament. Along with this, the volume of military technological cooperation of Russia and India will decrease inevitably.
<ref>Kommersant, February 03, 2006

I am by far not anti American, many of my best friends are American. I am anti Government, even the Canadian government pisses me off. Most Governments talk out of both sides of their mouth and can't be trusted knowhow. I suspect it has something to do with migrating from lawyer to polititian.

I have no wish to argue this anymore but I submit that the Whitehouse isn't so lily white & Russia has no plans to become communist again. In fact it would be impossible, the people wouldn't stand for it. And should a conflict arise between Russia & Ukraine you can only blame the Ukrainian Government for that, not Russia. Russia is only protecting its rights & its property, Ukraine is the lying thieves that are stirring the pot however that won't matter one iota to Washington, they will side with whoever they can get the most out of once the smoke clears.

RVR-Canadian Cowboy