The RUSSIA thread

Users who are viewing this thread

The only value in placing a base there would be to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine. There would be no other benefit, and even that benefit really only benefits Ukraine, not the US or NATO in general. Whatever you think of these "decision makers", they are fully aware of that. Even if NATO did hypothetically expand to Ukraine, there would still be no strategic benefit to placing a base there.
 
Also NATO isn't just the US and their fan club. Other NATO countries are perfectly capable of building military bases if they choose to do so.
 
Mage246 said:
The only value in placing a base there would be to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine. There would be no other benefit, and even that benefit really only benefits Ukraine, not the US or NATO in general. Whatever you think of these "decision makers", they are fully aware of that. Even if NATO did hypothetically expand to Ukraine, there would still be no strategic benefit to placing a base there.

Its not about the US, its about Russia. Do you actually think that the russian military want that scenario ?
 
Mage246 said:
The only value in placing a base there would be to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine. There would be no other benefit, and even that benefit really only benefits Ukraine, not the US or NATO in general. Whatever you think of these "decision makers", they are fully aware of that. Even if NATO did hypothetically expand to Ukraine, there would still be no strategic benefit to placing a base there.
I was just equating the case of ukraine with the eastern expansion. While i dont see a particular use in it, it has still been done and might be a policy that will be pursued further. So they must see some merit in doing so.

I wasn't really talking about bases, but the strategic use of ukraine in general, which seemed to be the last bit of the discussion.

Frankish Sinatra said:
Also NATO isn't just the US and their fan club. Other NATO countries are perfectly capable of building military bases if they choose to do so.
And yet the US is the most relevant actor - by far.
 
And yet the US cannot force the other NATO countries to unconditionally to help it out in whatever crisis it's going through at any moment.
 
Jhessail said:
And yet the US cannot force the other NATO countries to unconditionally to help it out in whatever crisis it's going through at any moment.
I dont believe anyone was implying otherwise.
 
Some Russian political humor

0_d7841_15638aed_orig
 
It's not a knight. It's Saint George killing the dragon. St. George is pretty much the official patron saint of Russian imperialism.

Except this time he's not killing an evil dragon, but evil western food.
 
It's slightly akward that Saint George is also the patron saint of the area I live in. We have processions/marches with flags of him.

We do call him by his much sexier Dutch name 'Sint Joris'
 
It bothers me that the republican Russian Federation has a coat of arms with an escutcheon over the eagle's chest representing a non-existing monarch's primary title, and that the eagle wears crowns and bears a sceptre and orb befitting that non-existent office. It's bad enough that the eagle itself represents the continuity of the Byzantine Palaiologos bloodline, which no longer sits on the Moscow throne, because of course, it doesn't exist anymore, but then the head of the sceptre is a complete reproduction of the coat of arms, including another sceptre, so the baseless monarchist pretension is repeated fractally, forever and ever. Infinite eagles, infinite crowns, infinite sceptres.

At least the Karenskiy government had the good sense to scrap all that crap and just keep the eagle. I mean, it was ugly, but at least it was logical. The only thing the Russian Federation removed from the original Imperial arms was the blue ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew, which was probably the least problematic symbol of them all.

Kill the eagle, toss out Georgie Porgie, get a shield with the tricolour in there, put up some supporters, a brown bear from Novgorod on the left with a Roman fasces, and a Zilant from Kazan with a bunchuk on the right. Around the shield have a braided ribbon of three different colour schemes: light blue from the Order of St. Andrew, orange with three black stripes from the Order of St. George, and the Russian tricolour from the Hero of the Russian Federation, and this ribbon terminates below the shield with a giant Heroic gold star, flanked by the white cross of St. George on the right and the black eagle and saltire of St. Andrew on the left, both of which are smaller than the star. So the shield represents the Russian people themselves, upon which the state derives all its authority, the supporters represent two continents and disparate cultures coming together to synthesize Russia, and the braided ribbon and medallions represent the state itself, binding the people together in law and order. Guaranteed to impress or offend no one, instilling no emotion whatsoever - everything a national arms must be for the 21st century.
 
Bluehawk said:
It bothers me that the republican Russian Federation has a coat of arms with an escutcheon over the eagle's chest representing a non-existing monarch's primary title, and that the eagle wears crowns and bears a sceptre and orb befitting that non-existent office. It's bad enough that the eagle itself represents the continuity of the Byzantine Palaiologos bloodline, which no longer sits on the Moscow throne, because of course, it doesn't exist anymore, but then the head of the sceptre is a complete reproduction of the coat of arms, including another sceptre, so the baseless monarchist pretension is repeated fractally, forever and ever. Infinite eagles, infinite crowns, infinite sceptres.
And then you have Austria, the only coat of arms with a hammer and sickle that isn't communist.
austria-coat-of-arms_902.jpg
 
Bluehawk said:
Fight me irl.
On the contrary, I am going to improve on your design.
Instead of fasces, the bear should hold a sickle and a balalaika to represent the beast's industriousness and artistic talent. Zilant should hold a bottle of vodka and a beer, chugging from both simultaneously, to represent the other half of the population.
 
Pretty sure tatars have been a minority in Kazan for a while now.
In any case, if you want the new crest to better represent modern Russian reality, you can't honestly avoid the issue of drinking. Don't try to be cute with "lesser nations" here. :razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom