Red Square Parade Returns

[K. A. Pital]

I consider the Red Square parade to be ostentatious saber-rattling, which by Putin's own admission is basically what it is.

I thought Putin said it's a display of our defense capabilities. I didn't hear him say it's ostentatious, boasting or sabre-rattling.

But regardless of Georgia's rhetoric

Georgia concentrated 7500 troops if my memory serves me well.

Uh...because they would be obliterated?

If it's a nuclear war with Russia as a party, aren't we going to get obliterated anyway? And any large enough war with Russia, to be considered "total war", is inevitably a nuclear war.

Besides, part of the Parade are always the nuclear forces - ICBM launchers. They are a deterrent force and I'm sure you agree can't constitute "sabre rattling".

[HemlockGrey]

I thought Putin said it's a display of our defense capabilities. I didn't hear him say it's ostentatious, boasting or sabre-rattling.

Reading between the lines, "Russia has risen from its knees and is prepared to do everything to make its concerns heard" is strongman-speak for "Look how badass we are, better not fuck with us."

Georgia concentrated 7500 troops if my memory serves me well.

Do you have a source for this? I checked Reuters and a few other sources and the only Russian spokesmen they quoted stated that the increase in troop presence was a "plan" by Georgia to invade Abkhazia.

If it's a nuclear war with Russia as a party, aren't we going to get obliterated anyway? And any large enough war with Russia, to be considered "total war", is inevitably a nuclear war.

So you have the option of committing suicide but taking some of your enemies with you if your very existence is threatened. That's hardly the sort of strategic flexibility that comes with being the "second-greatest military power in the world".

[HemlockGrey]

I thought Putin said it's a display of our defense capabilities. I didn't hear him say it's ostentatious, boasting or sabre-rattling.

Reading between the lines, "Russia has risen from its knees and is prepared to do everything to make its concerns heard" is strongman-speak for "Look how badass we are, better not fuck with us."

Georgia concentrated 7500 troops if my memory serves me well.

Do you have a source for this? I checked Reuters and a few other sources and the only Russian spokesmen they quoted stated that the increase in troop presence was a "plan" by Georgia to invade Abkhazia.

If it's a nuclear war with Russia as a party, aren't we going to get obliterated anyway? And any large enough war with Russia, to be considered "total war", is inevitably a nuclear war.

The only effect of the Russian nuclear arsenal is to prevent someone else from nuking you first. They only become a factor if some enemy tanks are already rolling into Moscow. Any sort of war involving Russia in the future is likely to be a limited war over a specific issue or resource...not much help having nukes then.

[Vympel]

The only effect of the Russian nuclear arsenal is to prevent someone else from nuking you first. They only become a factor if some enemy tanks are already rolling into Moscow. Any sort of war involving Russia in the future is likely to be a limited war over a specific issue or resource...not much help having nukes then.

Nonsense. The effect of the nuclear arsenal is preventing the very conception of enemy tanks ever rolling into Moscow, or indeed, even attempting to initiate a nation-threatening attack on Russia in the first place.

[Vympel]

That's total bullshit and you know it.

And you base this on ... what?

Even if we make the generous assumption that US-Russian nuclear capacity is still equal, Russia cannot actually "wipe out" the US.

And you base this on ... what?

Russia cannot actually use its nuclear weapons on ANYBODY.

And you base this on ... what?

So you have the option of committing suicide but taking some of your enemies with you if your very existence is threatened. That's hardly the sort of strategic flexibility that comes with being the "second-greatest military power in the world".

Ok then, do name a country that has greater strategic flexibility? An equivalent to its strategic bomber forces, perhaps? Oh, that's right - none exists.

[HemlockGrey]

Nonsense. The effect of the nuclear arsenal is preventing the very conception of enemy tanks ever rolling into Moscow, or indeed, even attempting to initiate a nation-threatening attack on Russia in the first place.

Ok? If it came down to a war between NATO and Russia over Serbia or Ukraine or Georgia or the EU and Russia over energy (all obviously unlikely, but bear with me), Russia would still lose. All the possible military flashpoints lend themselves to limited wars with limited objectives, and Russia can't fight those wars unless their only opponents are small-state basketcases.

[Vympel]

Ok? If it came down to a war between NATO and Russia over Serbia or Ukraine or Georgia or the EU and Russia over energy (all obviously unlikely, but bear with me), Russia would still lose. All the possible military flashpoints lend themselves to limited wars with limited objectives, and Russia can't fight those wars unless their only opponents are small-state basketcases.

NATO would never dare to fight Russia over Serbia or Ukraine. That's the whole point of being a nuclear power. You think they'd push it up to the wall for either of them? Why, pray tell?

You might also tell me when the last time the US fought a country other than a small-state basketcase. That's right - WW2.

EDIT: Anyway, this is way off-topic. Russia's comparative strength/weakness really has very little to do with anything.

[K. A. Pital]

Reading between the lines, "Russia has risen from its knees and is prepared to do everything to make its concerns heard" is strongman-speak for "Look how badass we are, better not fuck with us."

HemlockGrey can't discern between polite military speak and ostentious one. So he "reads between the lines".

Well, here's a hit: when the US says "adversarial" about Russia, that sounds OK. When Russia says "display defense capabilities" that must be boasting and sabre rattling.

Do you have a source for this? I checked Reuters and a few other sources and the only Russian spokesmen they quoted stated that the increase in troop presence was a "plan" by Georgia to invade Abkhazia.

They now permanently keep 5 thousand in the general S.O. region and 2 thousand immediately on the South Ossetia border, and that's the threat level Russian military appointees there are planning for.

Abkhazia claims the same level of concentration for Kodori gorge but I can't verify it right now one way or other.

The only effect of the Russian nuclear arsenal is to prevent someone else from nuking you first.

From even FUCKING with us first, and Vympel is right - no nation in their sane mind would conv-attack Russia, unless that nation is an idiot.

[Vympel]

Sorta back on topic, a video of the vehicles practicing in Moscow the night of the 29th of April:

Link

* The usual UAZ mounted officers of the relevant unit in front where there's an even number of vehicles in each set:-

- 9 GAZ Tigr (HMMWVskis)

- 9 BTR-80M W-APCs

- 9 BMP-3 (mod) ICVs

- 9 BMD-4 AICVs

- 8 2S25 Sprut-SD light tanks

- 9 T-90A MBTs

- 8 2S19 Msta-S SPGs

- 4 2S6 Tunguska-M1 ADVs

- 4 Tor-M1 SAMs

- 4 Buk-M2 SAM TELs

- 4 Buk-M1 SAM LLs (loader launchers)

- 8 Smerch MRLs

- 4 S-300PM TELs (dont know which specific type)

- 4 Iskander-M SRBM (SS-26) TELs

- 4 Topol ICBM (SS-25) TELs

- More UAZs

- 2 BREM-1 ARRV

- Trucks/trailers/ technical support vehicles whose specific designations escape me for the most part.

So a little over 100 vehicles, roughly.

[Lonestar]

Somewhat on Topic, I think that the Russian Victory Parades are cool, and entirely apropos considering that the Russians sacrificed the lions share of blood fighting the Germans.

[Darth Wong]

Obnoxious nationalism is always wrong, but being both an obnoxious chauvenist and a bellicose wannabe is worse.

"Support the Troops". How many of those bumper stickers have been sold in the US, again?

But the examples you gave are less frightening to me than nuclear missiles, tanks, and goosesteppers in the Mall.

That's the whole point I'm making, you goddamned idiot. They are less frightening TO YOU because you're used to them. You're totally conditioned, which means you've actually conceded my point but you don't realize it.

You want to put this to a poll of non-Americans?

I love the way you just assume that you would win such a poll, even though the non-Americans on this very thread do not seem to share your opinion.

Are the odds of pigs flying nearly 1 in 10?

Is Illuminatus Primus a moronic pedant?

Of course illegal immigrants are undercounted due to their by-definition undocumented nature. And the children of immigrants, while citizens, are rarely made to feel welcome.

Funny ... nothing in the psychological conditioning theory requires that people be made to "feel welcome" before it works. Please, enlighten us on how YOU think psychological conditioning works.

Of course if I were to assert your anti-Americanism as just a single example of all Canadians' projection of their universal inferiority complex directed at America because they're saturated with American goods, media, news, and culture and its presence their whole lives, I would be ridiculed.

And rightly so, because that is simply a wild assumption on your part, whereas psychological conditioning is a well-known phenomenon. As I said, you're just digging the hole deeper. Moron.

I suppose all blacks - in the mold of "God Damn America" Rev. Wright, also fit your on-size fits-all model of American brainwashing?

Why yes he does, since he is probably just as accustomed to everyday American nationalist displays are you are. Your reliance on red-herrings is endless, and it never gets any less stupid because you so gloriously miss the whole point in your idiotic determination to fight the Evil Anti-American. The fact that Reverend Wright says there are problems with America does not mean he is any less accustomed to everyday American displays of nationalism, fucktard. It does not mean that the psychological conditioning effect of seeing the same imagery every goddamned day of his life is any weaker. It does not mean that he finds the ubiquitous and garish displays of the flag any more unusual or "creepy" (a word you chose which sums up the instinctive conditioned nature of your response perfectly) than anyone else. His objections take place on a conscious level; conditioning of this nature takes place on a subconscious level.

[Darth Wong]

Absurdity

The only implication I made is that Russia doesn't have the military strength to back up its own saber-rattling. That would be the only reason I thought it was "ridiculous", and I'd like to hear why that's not a valid opinion. I have no idea where you got all this nonsense about American nationalism. I wasn't even considering it in the context of nationalism.

Others have shredded this incredibly stupid horseshit. Let me just say that your original line was this:

It's actually kind of sad how desperate Russia is to cling to the idea that they're still a great power.

So this parade is "sad" and "desperate" because Russia is no longer a "great power". You can deny it all you like, but this statement clearly implies that if a nation is a great power by your personal estimation, then the exact same display would be less "sad".

[Havok]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

[Kanastrous]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

I want to support the troops, but to me at this point that means supporting them against the government...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

I want to support the troops, but to me at this point that means supporting them against the government...

That technically is mutiny.

[Kanastrous]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

I want to support the troops, but to me at this point that means supporting them against the government...

That technically is mutiny.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear; I meant that supporting the troops, to me increasingly means supporting them against how our government wants to employ them, and treat them.

[Havok]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

I want to support the troops, but to me at this point that means supporting them against the government...

That technically is mutiny.

The US is not a big ship. It would be treason.

[Kanastrous]

I want to support the troops, but to me at this point that means supporting them against the government...

That technically is mutiny.

The US is not a big ship. It would be treason.

It's still mutiny, even if it's on land, I think.

As in the Sepoy Mutiny.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know if "Support the Troops" is the best example here. My impression is that that particular slogan has taken on new meaning; Support the Troops, BUT not the Government. The stupid flag lapel pins or the ridiculous "God Bless America" stickers would probably be better examples.

One doesn't necessarily have to be a supporter of the current government in order to be a rabid nationalist/militarist.

[[R_H]]

Wasn't the use of heavy equipment on the May 9 parade only fallen out of use because it was extremely costly to pull off? Or was there a law introduced by Yeltsin? I forget.

Anyway, I think this is a significant event also because it's the first time the 'full monty' May 9 parade has taken place in a Moscow inundated with digital-camera equipped citizenry

Further, it could really boost the shit out of tourism.

I read (post #5) the use of the heavy equipment was stopped because of the mall that was built under the Red Square.