Russia threatens Poland; Norway says also cuts ties to NATO

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Because you ignorant tard, Russia's application to join Nato got thrown out and no one in the EU would conceivably get too close to Russia. Nato remains, and has been since its formation, an anti-Russian bloc.

This is why the US really should have tried to push some structural changes through in NATO after 1991.

I doubt it would have happened especially when the State Dept was getting too close to that Russophobic Pole (I forgot his name).

[Pelranius]

Because you ignorant tard, Russia's application to join Nato got thrown out and no one in the EU would conceivably get too close to Russia. Nato remains, and has been since its formation, an anti-Russian bloc.

This is why the US really should have tried to push some structural changes through in NATO after 1991.

I doubt it would have happened especially when the State Dept was getting too close to that Russophobic Pole (I forgot his name).

You mean Breziniski?

[Sidewinder]

Boofuckinghoo. If the Russians are seriously concerned that a SINGLE launcher with TEN missiles can seriously cut into their strategic deterrent, then the Russian nuclear stockpile has degenerated into a bigger pile of radioactive shit than we've all thought.

Honestly. Ten ABMs, assuming they all hit, are going to really cut into a nuclear armaggedon with a couple thousand warheads being lobbed around? Or even a couple of hundred?

Because you ignorant twit the expensive item on the list isn't the missiles but the radar. The missiles can be easily increased from a mere 10 to a few hundred.

The US and Russia/the former USSR already have treaties to limit the number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems they have. Why can't they reach a similar agreement on the number of ABM systems they have (assuming George W. Bush's successor is willing to negotiate with the Russian President on this subject)?

[Commander 598]

Doesn't this whole ABM thing mean dick all unless we start lobbing nukes? I'm pretty sure those aren't on the table as anything more than a big stick to wave at each other.

First off the price of ABM efforts have to be balanced against the cost losing a city to a nuclear airburst. If even once this is meant then the systems about worth its weight in gold.

Second nukes aren't the only WMD that can be put on a missile nor are all missiles WMD armed nor are all ABM's tailored to just likely WMD carriers.

Lastly, again, ballistic missile technology is LONG out of Pandor's Box and powers much less reasonable than Russia and China have or covet missiles. To Iran and North Korea, ballistic missiles will be a first, not last, resort. Whether or not WMD's will also be a first resort for them is in just enough doubt that prudence is well warranted.

PS -- the developmental and fielding lead times for these weapons is quite long and we will never enjoy a viable defense by fielding it in RESPONSE to their emergence. Furthermore, the real painful expense is up-front, working out the kinks in every weapon, building and integrating all the sensors and command and control elements and tooling factories for mass production. We either establish an industrial base when threats are nascent or we dither until we're facing a clear and present danger we have no answer to, i.e., nuclear blackmail against us where our only real if inpalatable solution is de facto threats of nuclear retaliation. An absence of any ABM whatsoever increases the likelihood of things escalating out of control.

Would it be out of the question to stop worrying about the nukes and start worrying about the Neo-Soviet Tank Rush? You see, I really can't see anyone that actually possesses ICBM tech having the balls, no, being stupid enough to actually launch them. Instead of continuing to play the "Where's my missiles?" game that we've been playing for the past half century, what if what is going through the heads of the planners in Russia is that "NO ONE [threateningly important] will EVER (Anytime soon anyway) initiate global thermonuclear warfare so why are we so worried about it?"? Russia complaining about the ABM system is nothing more than trolling if this is the case.

All theoretical of course...

[Pelranius]

The most immediate tangible effects of a Russian reaction would be to increase arms sales to countries that we don't care much for, as well as being more friendly to China (the oil pipeline is being built first to Daqing instead of Nadhoka since the Kremlin isn't too happy about Japan getting in bed with Washington on BMD in Asia).

[Medic]

Would it be out of the question to stop worrying about the nukes and start worrying about the Neo-Soviet Tank Rush? You see, I really can't see anyone that actually possesses ICBM tech having the balls, no, being stupid enough to actually launch them. Instead of continuing to play the "Where's my missiles?" game that we've been playing for the past half century, what if what is going through the heads of the planners in Russia is that "NO ONE [threateningly important] will EVER (Anytime soon anyway) initiate global thermonuclear warfare so why are we so worried about it?"? Russia complaining about the ABM system is nothing more than trolling if this is the case.

All theoretical of course...

I could only point out that scud-type ballistic missiles are a very real threat, having been used by Iraq in 1990/91 and are in plentiful quantity in Iran and North Korea. That's what we have PAC-3 for, in addition to THAAD and SM-3. That's a whole clutch of interceptors which can be potentially life-saving (to troops, installations, civilians, infrastructure) against real-world, not at all hypothetical, weapons. Point in case:

The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.

Evidence of actual use. There's also a picture out there of the booster section crushing a car from this recent conflict, sucks to be the owner of that car.

Low-end ballistic missiles are weapons like any other in the sense that their use does not some involve some huge strategic calculus like the use of WMD-tipped IRBM's, ICBM's and SLBM's. As a caveat to the above though, their use is VERY attractive when it is for many, many countries in the world, their only means of deep strike and interdiction in the face of overwhelming Western air superiority.

From a very much less rational perspective though, we're only talking about a weapon which was literally borne into war as a terror weapon and whose best use is ultimately mass murder of civilians and is an ideal WMD delivery system. I couldn't care less how much it costs so long as the overall defense budget can shoulder it. I mean shit, we're literally talking about a DEFENSIVE weapon system. You'd think in a liberal democracy it would have the best kind of support. And to be fair, it actually does, a whopping 87% of Americans.

PS -- here's the link, it wouldn't URL properly in the preview but I'll try it anyway here at the end (maybe a mod could fix it?):
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/8 ... &dist=hppr

[Medic]

And as for the Neo-Soviet Tank Rush... yeah right. Smart weapons of the 1980's put the conventional Fulda Gap war-scenario increasingly in our favor and those were all 1st generation weapon systems. I'd feel pretty sorry for the Russian AFV waves getting attrited to all hell from Javelin-armed light infantry, I mean it's hardly fair they should be able to take out tanks so easily.

(that's genuine too, I am still a tanker after all )

[Commander 598]

Would it be out of the question to stop worrying about the nukes and start worrying about the Neo-Soviet Tank Rush? You see, I really can't see anyone that actually possesses ICBM tech having the balls, no, being stupid enough to actually launch them. Instead of continuing to play the "Where's my missiles?" game that we've been playing for the past half century, what if what is going through the heads of the planners in Russia is that "NO ONE [threateningly important] will EVER (Anytime soon anyway) initiate global thermonuclear warfare so why are we so worried about it?"? Russia complaining about the ABM system is nothing more than trolling if this is the case.

All theoretical of course...

I could only point out that scud-type ballistic missiles are a very real threat, having been used by Iraq in 1990/91 and are in plentiful quantity in Iran and North Korea. That's what we have PAC-3 for, in addition to THAAD and SM-3. That's a whole clutch of interceptors which can be potentially life-saving (to troops, installations, civilians, infrastructure) against real-world, not at all hypothetical, weapons. Point in case:

The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.

Evidence of actual use. There's also a picture out there of the booster section crushing a car from this recent conflict, sucks to be the owner of that car.

Low-end ballistic missiles are weapons like any other in the sense that their use does not some involve some huge strategic calculus like the use of WMD-tipped IRBM's, ICBM's and SLBM's. As a caveat to the above though, their use is VERY attractive when it is for many, many countries in the world, their only means of deep strike and interdiction in the face of overwhelming Western air superiority.

From a very much less rational perspective though, we're only talking about a weapon which was literally borne into war as a terror weapon and whose best use is ultimately mass murder of civilians and is an ideal WMD delivery system. I couldn't care less how much it costs so long as the overall defense budget can shoulder it. I mean shit, we're literally talking about a DEFENSIVE weapon system. You'd think in a liberal democracy it would have the best kind of support. And to be fair, it actually does, a whopping 87% of Americans.

PS -- here's the link, it wouldn't URL properly in the preview but I'll try it anyway here at the end (maybe a mod could fix it?):
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/8 ... &dist=hppr

Oh yeah, I forgot about conventional ballistic weapons.

And as for the Neo-Soviet Tank Rush... yeah right. Smart weapons of the 1980's put the conventional Fulda Gap war-scenario increasingly in our favor and those were all 1st generation weapon systems. I'd feel pretty sorry for the Russian AFV waves getting attrited to all hell from Javelin-armed light infantry, I mean it's hardly fair they should be able to take out tanks so easily.

That was a metaphor for conventional attack. Also, I hear RPG-29s can kill Abrams and ignore slat armor.

[Medic]

Oh yeah, I forgot about conventional ballistic weapons.

To be fair though, I don't believe those systems account for such a large-ish chunk of the Missile Defense Agency's budget, although a certain very large chunk like sensors and command and control systems are essentially evenly distributed among all the systems, in that they all benefit form the system as a whole. Still it IS a significant chunk, just not the largest.

As far as conventional attack goes though, I suppose I should go into detail on the tip of the iceberg of smart weapons. The Russians 20 years ago would not have seen: JDAM's, Longbow Apaches, Javelins, M1A2 SEP's, universally armored soldiers, advanced sights and optics coming out of soldiers and marines ears, AMRAAM's, stealth fighters (the F-117's moniker notwithstanding), all of which they'd have to now. (well, assuming it's us and them and I'm sure I left off some significant items) That only gets worse with time, the small-diameter bomb is just around the corner in being fielded too.

We've KEPT our edge too for the most part. Although gunnery skills in our armored units were likely better at the peak of the Cold War than they are in the middle of occupational wars andour end-strength was greater then, these don't compare to the sort of dilapidation the Russians suffered.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The US and Russia/the former USSR already have treaties to limit the number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems they have. Why can't they reach a similar agreement on the number of ABM systems they have (assuming George W. Bush's successor is willing to negotiate with the Russian President on this subject)?

Maybe the next president, but certainly not the current one. The current one has been extremely relucatant to concede anything.

[K. A. Pital]

You don't actually need the ability to annihilate pretty much any other country on the map - you could probably get by with being able to annihilate either Europe or China

Excuse me, why am I hearing about the needs my country has from someone who lives in another country, and whose interests of course are for Russia to lose the ability to "annihilate any other country on the map"?

"We could probably get by"? We don't want to test probabilities. We want to have a meaningful deterrent against any possible enemy. Any includes, but is not limited to, the United States.

In fact, the United States is, was, remains and will remain for a long time, the prime possible enemy in a war involving missile strikes.

Given the reckless foreign policy of the United States, and the very possible involvement in a proxy war with them, it is clear that the ability to destroy the US is paramount to our security and will influence the decision making process for every Russian.

Western Democracy going Imperialist and imposing a 'New World Order' is the worst idea in the world

It's already happening in Iraq, Kosovo, etc. The Western powers redraw borders in Europen and the Middle East the way they want. The only nations which are strong enough to refute their bullfuckery are probably China, Russia and India. You were saying about "imperialism"?

-except letting the Russians or the Chinese call the shots instead. Someone is going to become top dog, it's human nature, and it's much better that it's 'us' (US/EU/Japan/India/etc) than the other alternatives.

Who said anything about "top dogs", you moron? The US already was and remains the top dog. Did that actually reduce the number of wars? Or maybe it stopped, um, imperialism? No, it did not.

What the US can't stand, and will never stand - what it loathes, absolutely hates - is some nation decisively standing up to it and saying "well, fuck you America, your leaders and your interests - we have our own and we're not backing down". US hawk Zbigniew Bzerzhinsky said that the US should never let any other power to rise which could challenge it politically or militarily, and do so by ANY means. He said it openly. The guy orchestrated Afghanistan, and many other things which he openly said are for the US domination of the world.

These nations, which could even a little speak out against the US and it's policies, are immediately labelled "enemies" in the press if they weren't already, or if they were friendly, the US expresses "great concern about the lack of understanding". After a few rounds of diplomatic tensions, the US may or may not bomb said country to the stone age - if it wants. Other nations can't do shit about it, which was evident in the recent years.

No, here's what - fuck you and your open statement about "well, someone will rule the world, so it better be us" - nothing signifies more clearly that you are an imperialist, and a vile one who disguises his lust for world domination by feelgood speak about "lesser evil".

[Vympel]

I could only point out that scud-type ballistic missiles are a very real threat, having been used by Iraq in 1990/91 and are in plentiful quantity in Iran and North Korea. That's what we have PAC-3 for, in addition to THAAD and SM-3. That's a whole clutch of interceptors which can be potentially life-saving (to troops, installations, civilians, infrastructure) against real-world, not at all hypothetical, weapons. Point in case:

Tochka-U (SS-21 SCARAB-B) isn't a "Scud-type" weapon. It's a replacement for the FROG series, it's range is much less than the Elbrus series (SS-1 SCUD), and it's way more accurate. Flight profile is nowhere near the same, either. Much harder to hit.

Iskander-M (SS-26 STONE) is the replacement for Elbrus / SCUD. Replacing the Oka (SS-23 SPIDER), which was banned under the INF Treaty. It's range could easily be increased ahead of INF limits, and the Russians have actually talked about that possibility.

[Crayz9000]

Frankly, I wouldn't care if everyone and their uncle deployed real ABM systems. Better for everyone as far as I'm concerned, missiles were the biggest fucking waste of money ever, and the sooner they go the way of the dodo the better.

[K. A. Pital]

Why does anyone assume that with the death of conventional old missiles we will stop spending shitloads of money on, um, missiles?

Billions will be spent for:
a) expansion of strategic airforce and the creation of new supersonic bombers
b) expansion of production of supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles like the AS-19 and it's likes
c) expansion of production of ASAT missiles and FOBS or true orbital weapons, which will be the next phase of militarization

If someone thinks that the arms race is over, or there won't be more waste of money if everyone deploys an ABM (which incidentally will lower the possible strategic weaponry casualties among war participants, making them far more prone to war - for example, India, Pakistan and China with ABM could easily test lobbing missiles at each other in a war, if every one of them had a functional ABM)

[TimothyC]

Honestly. Ten ABMs, assuming they all hit, are going to really cut into a nuclear armaggedon with a couple thousand warheads being lobbed around? Or even a couple of hundred?

From what I've seen/read the US system uses a Shoot-Shoot-Look pattern, which further reduces the total number of targets to 5, not ten.

The US and Russia/the former USSR already have treaties to limit the number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems they have. Why can't they reach a similar agreement on the number of ABM systems they have (assuming George W. Bush's successor is willing to negotiate with the Russian President on this subject)?

We had such a treaty. What I have always failed to see is why a weapon system, that by it's very nature can only be used to defend the owner is so disliked by so many. Every dollar that is spent on a GBI is a Dollar that isn't spent on an offensive system, how can people object to that?

[Slacker]

Because you ignorant twit the expensive item on the list isn't the missiles but the radar. The missiles can be easily increased from a mere 10 to a few hundred.

Because you ignorant tard, Russia's application to join Nato got thrown out and no one in the EU would conceivably get too close to Russia. Nato remains, and has been since its formation, an anti-Russian bloc.

You will have to do better to convince me when the US continues to prop the occasional dictator, and that Iraqi invasion still remains illegal.

-And a missile/radar site in Eastern Europe is going to accomplish a whole fucking ton when the majority of the Russian silo sites are in fucking Siberia. By the time the shoot shoot look cycle's been completed, the missiles will probably be well out of range of any follow up shots.

Besides which, the Russians didn't say jack or shit about the Czech radar, haven't threatened to nuke Prague. Eat my taint flameboy, if you're going to be a reject and try and smoke someone be sure to get basic facts straight.

-The Russians have NEVER, EVER applied to join NATO. It's never happened. Again, eat my taint. There's been partnership projects, but that is a huge and far cry from Russia joining NATO or the EU.

-Never said we were always on the side of angels, just said we're better than the alternatives. At least Mess 'o Potamia, we've (albeit recently) tried to get the country functioning again, are trying to instill a sense of democracy, and aren't actively wrecking the infrastructure of the country. Russia invaded Georgia on behalf on 70,000 *Russian* citizens who lived in Georgia, out of a population of over 4 million, who weren't actually being repressed or anything-rebels fired on Georgian civilians first, let's remember that. That's right, a Great Power launched an invasion of its neighbor because of a population the size of a medium suburban town. It's not like they're even some poor oppressed populace with no homeland of their own-they were probably moved there enmasse during the Soviet era as a 'loyalist population' against the ethnic Georgians, and there wasn't exactly anything preventing them from just moving back to Russia.

My point isn't that the West isn't the top dog now. My point is that there are other countries/blocs-the Russians, Chinese, etc-that would love to knock us out of that top spot, and if I have to choose between living in a world dominated by the Western Democracies, or by China, or by Russia, I sure as shit know which one *I'd* pick. And it's the same one 95% of the people on this board would select, too.

[K. A. Pital]

What I have always failed to see is why a weapon system, that by it's very nature can only be used to defend the owner is so disliked by so many.

Ask yourself about losing a strategic deterrent which you spent billions to make, and then see the ABM Treaty. Then consider the possibility of swapping usual ABM "interceptors" for various other missiles which could ahve any purpose, from cruise missiles to MRBMs and SRBMs, and you have the answer why missile sites and radars on your border are not a good idea.

And a missile/radar site in Eastern Europe is going to accomplish a whole fucking ton when the majority of the Russian silo sites are in fucking Siberia. By the time the shoot shoot look cycle's been completed, the missiles will probably be well out of range of any follow up shots.

Missiles are going to be traversing over Europe, to strike targets in the US, and in Europe as well (US military installations and AFBs). Silos are in the European part of Russia as well.

Besides which, the Russians didn't say jack or shit about the Czech radar

That's bullshit. We objected to both and tried to pressure Czechia into rejecting the radar.

At least Mess 'o Potamia, we've (albeit recently) tried to get the country functioning again, are trying to instill a sense of democracy, and aren't actively wrecking the infrastructure of the country.

What? You ravaged the country to the extent where Baghdad remains without electric power and water, and Iraq's new leaders actively ask you to get the FUCK out of their country (which of course they can't enforce, since they are puppets without even a fucking shred of real independent action capability).

Russia invaded Georgia on behalf on 70,000 *Russian* citizens who lived in Georgia, out of a population of over 4 million, who weren't actually being repressed or anything-rebels fired on Georgian civilians first, let's remember that.

Are you fucking MAD? Georgia fucking shelled the SO capital city, killing not only S.Ossetians but also Russian soldiers. If you kill a Russian soldier, well fuck, but it's war because we can't just let Georgia kill our soldiers which are there legally, on the basis of a document Georgia itself signed in the 1990s when it failed to win over Abkhazia and S.Ossetia the first time. As for "mutual provocations", Georgians and SO always "fired" on each other, that has been going on for years already.

Georgians and SO fought a violent ethnic conflict in the 1990s when Georgia's military cleansed Tshinvali and killed SO, and you are saying the S.Ossetians have no griefs aganst Georgia? Which they NEVER let back into their province for 15 years since? Where the FUCK are you living in, fairy tale land?

It's not like they're even some poor oppressed populace with no homeland of their own-they were probably moved there enmasse during the Soviet era as a 'loyalist population' against the ethnic Georgians

You are a fucking idiot, really. N. and S. Ossetia were always a common territory inside the Russian empire with ethnic Ossetians. They got assigned to Georgia by a decree - but they had autonomous province circled around.

And Russia and/or China dominating "the world"? Just wake the fuck up, you idiot, neither Russia, nor China have the economic power or the military power to do it.

The only fucking nation which can, and the only one which spends 500 billion on it's fucking military machine, on it's enormous Navy which is used as a tool of agression against nations around the world at the whim of White House folk and their active supporters inside the USA, including you - these are the United fucking States of fucking America.

Russia and China don't even field a single fucking nuclear aircraft carrier. And can't build one, either. That alone speaks about their ability to "rule the world", which is a bogeyman you constructed.

P.S. Don't take the insults personally. I just get mad when people make some bullshit bogeyman about Russia and/or China trying to "rule the wrld" or "dominate th world". Anyone with even a slight understanding of economy and geopolitics should know that this is idiocy. Neither nation are in a position, shape to do so, and neither is showing any will for global domination.

Protecting your borders from an enemy who has proven himself agressive and unpredictable - yes, that's the USA - and which has business in every part of the world - is not the same as desiring 'world domination' which is what I see Slacker wants so badly. Go for it. I'll laugh when your "American empire of gunpoint democracy" falls down like a house of cards.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

-And a missile/radar site in Eastern Europe is going to accomplish a whole fucking ton when the majority of the Russian silo sites are in fucking Siberia. By the time the shoot shoot look cycle's been completed, the missiles will probably be well out of range of any follow up shots.

Since when? There have always been silos in Europe proper, and European side is huge. Besides, why would Russia want to waste long range missiles when short/medium range ones would do the job even more cheaply?

Besides which, the Russians didn't say jack or shit about the Czech radar, haven't threatened to nuke Prague. Eat my taint flameboy, if you're going to be a reject and try and smoke someone be sure to get basic facts straight.

Yeah, so maybe I got the part about Nato and Russia wrong, but seems you can't get your own facts right, or did you fail to read the newspapers about Russia grumbling about Czech Republic some a year ago.

Never said we were always on the side of angels, just said we're better than the alternatives. At least Mess 'o Potamia, we've (albeit recently) tried to get the country functioning again, are trying to instill a sense of democracy, and aren't actively wrecking the infrastructure of the country.

You have got to be kidding on instilling democracy. What you have done thus far is bribe your enemies and the country is as segregated as ever. Well done.

Russia invaded Georgia on behalf on 70,000 *Russian* citizens who lived in Georgia, out of a population of over 4 million, who weren't actually being repressed or anything-rebels fired on Georgian civilians first, let's remember that. That's right, a Great Power launched an invasion of its neighbor because of a population the size of a medium suburban town.

Good Lord, and your reading comprehension is remarkable. Georgia fired the first major artillery bombardment and sent troops thereafter. Hey, have you really been reading this from Fox News? It was written in the Times, NYTimes, and what not, that the Russian initial response was even slow to the attack. While, wonderful sense of timing.

It's not like they're even some poor oppressed populace with no homeland of their own-they were probably moved there enmasse during the Soviet era as a 'loyalist population' against the ethnic Georgians, and there wasn't exactly anything preventing them from just moving back to Russia.

Oh no, the reason why they aren't an oppressed populace is because their local government refused to recognise the Georgian government who can't go in and yank down the local government.

My point isn't that the West isn't the top dog now. My point is that there are other countries/blocs-the Russians, Chinese, etc-that would love to knock us out of that top spot, and if I have to choose between living in a world dominated by the Western Democracies, or by China, or by Russia, I sure as shit know which one *I'd* pick. And it's the same one 95% of the people on this board would select, too.

Who the fuck cares about knocking you off the top spot? The only thing people in Asia care about is the American government quit muscling everyone and stop trying to force their will on them. Some Europeans would like to suck American government's cock, but certain not the entire world would.

[Medic]

Protecting your borders from an enemy who has proven himself aggressive and unpredictable - yes, that's the USA - and which has business in every part of the world - is not the same as desiring 'world domination' which is what I see Slacker wants so badly. Go for it.

Unpredictable? George W. Bush had us take down the terrorist safe-haven that was Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and named his "Axis of Evil" and proceeded to put us at war with the weakest of those three. The former anyone would have done in our shoes and though the latter probably isn't, he DID start a dialogue clearly leading us towards conflict.

It isn't like the armed forces needed to launch the invasion took months to build up or anything. The CONSEQUENCES perhaps weren't predicted well by us, but we weren't acting 'unpredictably' in those, the greatest of strategic decisions in the last 8 years.

[Slacker]

Your ignorance is obvious here. Missiles going between Russia and the US will NOT go through Europe (for the most part, anyway). They go over the pole, which is why we invested billions during the cold war building radar stations and interceptor bases in Northern Canada.

As for the Georgians 'going in first'-and the Russians just happened to have a fucking armored division sitting right on the border. Disregarding entirely the fact that your butt buddies in South Osstia shelled. Georgian civilians first.

Whatever, I'm not going to bother arguing with a couple of Russian nationalists who'll disregard anything that doesn't suck Russian cock

[Vympel]

As for the Georgians 'going in first'-and the Russians just happened to have a fucking armored division sitting right on the border.

Uhhh ... huh. So the nerfarious Russians having their army present in their own territory next to an established hot spot somehow absolves Georgia of responsibility and culpability for escalating matters ... how?

Disregarding entirely the fact that your butt buddies in South Osstia shelled. Georgian civilians first.

Really now? The Georgians said that, huh? So this absolves Georgia of responsibility and culpability for escalating matters by launching 122mm MRL rockets into a large city? That's a war crime, you fucking idiot.

Whatever, I'm not going to bother arguing with a couple of Russian nationalists who'll disregard anything that doesn't suck Russian cock

Or you're just a twat who thinks you can blame the Russians for the Georgian government's criminal incompetence.

[K. A. Pital]

Whatever, I'm not going to bother arguing with a couple of Russian nationalists who'll disregard anything that doesn't suck Russian cock

Do you know that on SDN, you don't just throw words around, but back them up?

Grow the fuck up and learn to present some evidence before you spout bullshit - and you produced a lot of bullshit in this thread already. That's my sincere advice.

As for the evil Russian nationalists, most sensible people on SDN don't share your view on the Georgian conflict. I guess all of them are Russian nationalists, or you are an idiot - the latter is more likely.